Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITIONS

Sunday Trading

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of 110 parishioners of the Church of Our Lady of Sorrows in Stopgate lane, Liverpool, expressing opposition to the Shops Bill which is at present before Parliament.
I agree fully with my constituents that Sunday has
special characteristics as a day of rest, recreation and worship for the benefit of our family and community life.
My petitioners urge this House to
maintain legal limitations on Sunday Trading to ensure that the special character of Sunday is protected.
I hope that the House will take due cognisance of their prayer.

To lie upon the Table.

Radioactive Waste Storage

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I present a petition from the people of Grimsby and the surrounding area which sheweth—
That the undersigned are totally and absolutely opposed to any proposal to locate any radioactive waste storage or disposal facility within the County of Humberside and consider that any such facility would relegate the area, designating it as more suitable for dangerous dumping than for development.
Wherefore your Petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House do urge the Secretary of State for the Environment in no circumstances to authorise any such dumping or any survey work to assess suitability for the establishment of any nuclear wast dump within the County.
There are two main signatures, backed by a further 190 signatures, which complete the 1,200 signatures of a petition which, I presented three weeks ago in similar terms, and heralds the tens of thousands of signatures to come.
Humberside will fight this 300-year blight. My constituents cannot see why the Department of the Environment is acting as the political arm of NIREX in trying to force the detritus of a nuclear industry on an area which has no connection with it. My constituents consider that if the Department of the Environment Select Committee to stop rushing into the matter and to begin a basic consideration of whether disposal is necessary, whether this is the best method and whether alternatives can be found, it will betray its responsibility to the environment and by constituents.

National Service (Youth Training)

Sir Philip Goodhart: I beg to move,
That this House takes note with approval of the Government's plans to expand the United Kingdom's volunteer reserve forces; and emphasises the great value to young people of basic service training, while recognising that such training should not be funded in a way which would diminish the United Kingdom's front line capability.
The idea that young people should give some service to the community in which they live is not the exclusive property of retired colonels living in the leafy suburbs of Tunbridge Wells or Cheltenham. As social anthropologists from the time of Malinowski and Durkheim have noted, this feeling is widespread in primitive and advanced societies. It is felt strongly by the Masai tribesmen of east Africa and the prosperous bourgeousie of Switzerland. It can be felt with equal fervour by young people, who look upon some form of service as an initiation right, and the elders in the community who believe instinctively that young people should have a special role in protecting and caring for the community.
I am delighted to note that that general view is shared by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, who will reply to the debate. My diligent research staff have drawn my attention to a speech that the Minister made in a debate on youth problems on 7 July 1980 when he was the chairman of the National Youth Bureau. He called for a three-year young Britons scheme. He said:
The scheme which I have in mind would be very much voluntary in its nature. I suggest that the first year should consist of basic military training, with limited annual training thereafter on lines operated so successfully by the Swiss. I know that the Armed Forces would not be too keen, but they have embryo facilities and the cadre of instructors.''
He went on to suggest that the second year of service should be spent on community work in mental hospitals or old people's homes and that the third year should be spent on industrial or craft training.
My proposals are a great deal less ambitious than that and also a great deal less expensive, but I hope that my hon. Friend's heart is still in the right place. As a starting point for my much more modest proposals, I took the statement made by the then Secretary of State for Defence on 14 April 1983 about the participation of the armed forces in the Government's youth training scheme. My right hon. Friend proposed to make available some 5,200 places for the young unemployed. He said:
Young people will volunteer to join one of the services on a 12-month engagement, part of which will be spent in formal training and the remainder in work experience."—[Official Report, 14 April 1983; Vol. 40, c. 946.]
I welcomed that scheme, which was not surprising, as I had started the first studies for it some two years before when I was a Minister in the Department. That modest scheme was, I regret to say, greeted with howls of rage by members of the official Opposition. In particular, Joan Lestor denounced it on behalf of the working class and Alex Lyon, in a particularly poetic passage, denounced the scheme as compulsory conscription. Joan Lestor and Alex Lyon, both of whom were soon to be rejected by their constituents, might have been surprised if they had realised how vehemently their dislike of compulsory conscription was shared by almost all the senior officers of the armed forces.
Almost without exception, senior officers wish to maintain our Army as a highly professional body recruited on a wholly voluntary basis, and the Ministry of Defence is reluctant to spend money on anything that does not directly enhance the capability of the front line troops. Conscript natonal service men would be regarded as an encumbrance rather than an asset. This view of the chiefs of staff, which was held three years ago, is still their view today.
Now that the armed forces youth training scheme has been in operation for nearly three years, the time has come to review its operation and to see how it can be altered and improved, particularly as the Ministry of Defence now has to decide whether to extend the armed forces YTS to two years to keep in step with the rest of the YTS programme.
I note that the Royal Air Force seems happy with the existing arrangements. Over the past three years, it has offered 1,606 places to young people and has had 916 successful applicants. It is clear that the young people concerned are getting a valuable training, and, as I understand it, the RAF feels that the scheme has been of benefit to it. Therefore, I see no reason to alter the RAF scheme as it stands.
In the same three years, the Royal Navy has offered a mere 1,130 places to young people and has taken on 335 trainees. Clearly it gets a lot less out of the scheme than does the RAF, and if the Royal Navy wishes to opt out of the project, I see no reason why it should not.
The biggest need, and the greatest scope, for change is in the Army. It was originally planned that the Army would offer nearly 4,000 YTS places a year, but it has barely filled a quarter of the original target. Therefore, I propose that the Army should scrap its original YTS and replace it with a voluntary national scheme in which some 15,000 young men or women would be offered 100 days of regular training with regular pay.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Before my hon. Friend gets on to the scheme about which we are all eager to hear, will he accept that the problem with the services youth training scheme is that the services have never understood the major benefit of recruiting people below the existing age for serving soldiers, sailors or airmen? I helped to set up the YTS scheme. Does my hon. Friend agree that not only is it cheap for the Ministry of Defence because it is paid for by the Department of Employment, but that if the services are offering an attractive career, having had a young man within their ranks for 12 months, it should be hoped that he could then become a more permanent part of the force? Is it not this failure to see this point that has been at the root of the extraordinarily poor figures in the three services?

Sir Philip Goodhart: I accept a great deal of what my hon. Friend, who did so much to set up the scheme, has said, although I note that the old Army young leaders scheme used to be of great value both to young people and to the Army.
My scheme would have considerable attractions to employers. Many employers wish to employ young people with specific skills, but the commonsense message that I get from employers' organisations nationally and locally is that they are, above all, anxious to employ young people with a sense of initiative, of purpose and of discipline. The

fact that a young person voluntarily undertakes to spend an intensive period of training should do a lot to enhance his attractiveness in the eyes of a great many employers.
Secondly, such a scheme of 100 days intensive training would be attractive to many men and women who are not particularly attracted by the present Army YTS. Large numbers of recruits are still coming forward both for the Regular Army and for the Territorial Army, and it is clear that many young people relish the challenge, particularly the short sharp challenge that the initial contact with the armed forces inevitably provides. The scheme would also have decided financial attractions to those taking part in it. The 100 days pay for a private, class four, band one comes to no less than £1,340. If one were to set aside £340 of pay for food and accommodation charges while serving, the young person might expect to be £1,000 better off at the end of 100 days.
Many hon. Members will have received letters from young people who are about to embark on a university career. Despite the fact that our grant system for undergraduates is the most generous in the industrial world, many young people going to university are faced with financial pressures. Some of them might find life at university considerably easier if they could start with nearly £1,000 in their pockets, having done a period of military training.
When choosing people who might join the scheme, priority should be given to those young people who have served in the cadet forces or other voluntary organisations at school and also to those who indicate a readiness to do some future service in the Territorial Army.
Three questions then arise. First, would the scheme be excessively expensive? Secondly, would it be an undue strain on the resources of the Army? Thirdly, would it be of any military value? The answer to the first question is, yes, it would be expensive, but not excessively expensive. The Manpower Services Commission is currently spending about £1,100 million on training schemes involving some 400,000 young people. Within that global figure I note that the estimated gross cost of mode B1 youth training scheme place is £3,800 for one year. When we move to two years of mode B1 training, the cost will of course increase. If the cost of training a recruit in the Army was £38 a day, which is a realisic estimate, a place in my suggested scheme would cost no more than a mode B1 place for one year.
Then there is the question whether the scheme would be an undue strain on the Army. Five years ago, or even three years ago, one could have said with some confidence that the Army could have coped within its existing resources. At that time the amount of money that we were spending on defence was growing quite sharply in real terms, and there was considerable elasticity in the Army's excellent training establishments.
I note that in 1981 the Army took in 25,956 recruits. In 1981–82 the figure fell to 12,405. In 1983–84 it bounced back again to nearly 20,000. That degree of variation showed that there was still a considerable amount of flexibility in the Army's primary training system. Since then, however, there has been a double squeeze. In real terms, the amount of money that we are planning to spend on defence is beginning to fall and a review of the Army's training facilities has eliminated a lot of the spare capacity that used to exist. There is talk once again of overstretch in the Army.
I do not want the Army to have to find from its existing resources the extra men and money that would be needed to cope with this scheme. Those with considerable expertise in training tell me that between 500 and 600 extra permanent staff would be needed to cope with this scheme and that the extra gross cost could be between £50 million and £60 million. That is a lot of money, but it is not such a lot when one considers that the budget of the Manpower Services Commission has gone up by £2 billion in the last seven years. I believe that the Army's manpower ceiling should be adjusted to take account of this extra commitment and that the money should come from our rapidly growing youth training budget rather than from our shrinking defence budget.
On the question whether the scheme would be of any military value, I think that it could benefit the Army, both directly and indirectly. One of the direct benefits would be, as I have just suggested, a small extra increase in the regular strength of the Army. Indirectly, I think that it is of help to the Army to be perceived to be making a contribution to the solution of a real national problem. As the number of men and women in the Army contracts, there is always the slight risk that the Army will lose contact with the community as a whole. As many hon. Members in the House can testify, the Army wins friends by having a large number of young people passing through its ranks.
Then there is the question whether 100 days' training is worth anything militarily. To that my reply would be that, if it is not, the NATO Alliance is in real trouble. As I have said, I hope that a considerable proportion of the young men and women who enter the scheme will go on to join the Territorial Army. This Government have sensibly recognised that the Territorial Army needs to be strengthened. I also note that at the moment less than a quarter of the officers and men serving in the Territorial Alloy have had any service with the regular forces.
I note that in an emergency both the British and the American armies rely heavily upon reserves to fill gaps in their order of battle. A large part of our military planning is based on the assumption that very large numbers of American reserves would cross the Atlantic to take part in a land battle in western Europe. The largest element in the American reserve is the army national guard, which is almost 500,000 strong. I note that before a national guardsman is counted as being properly trained he has to do 12 weeks, which will probably be extended to 14 weeks, basic regular training with the regular American army. Indeed, the Americans believe that three months' primary training with the regular forces is essential for their reserve forces. I believe that 100 days' primary training would have an important and beneficial effect upon our own reserve forces.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that the first American reserves to be deployed to Europe at a time of emergency or war would be their air reserves, that the air national guard squadrons come across for regular training, in some cases on an annual basis, and that with no trouble at all they are deployed to Europe across the Atlantic in supersonic aeroplanes? That dimension has to be made clear also.

Sir Philip Goodhart: The pilots involved in the ground crew need considerably more than the 100 days' training that I am proposing.
I note that in the Army debate on 30 January 1986 the Minister for the Armed Forces said:
The critical importance of the reserves is shown by the fact that, in a period of tension and after full mobilisation, the size of the Army as a whole would increase by some 175,000 through the addition of the reserves, and the size of the Army in Germany would almost treble. From that it can be seen that the Army would be in no position to discharge its wartime commitments without our reserve forces. Moreover, the reserves are strikingly cost-effective. The TA, for example, generates over 30 per cent. of the Army's order of battle for only some 5 per cent. of its budget.
Those of us who have attended Army debates over the last 20 years, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck), could, I am sure, almost recite that paragraph by heart. For almost 20 years, virtually without change, it has appeared in the speech of the Minister of whatever party who has had the privilege of opening the Army debate. This year I was glad to see that the Minister for the Armed Forces was able to go on to say:
The expansion of the Territorial Army is making steady progress towards our target of 86,000. The strength of the TA was only some 59,000 when we came into office in 1979. It is over 76,000 now, having increased by some 4,000 in the past year."—[Official Report, 30 January 1986; Vol. 90. c. 1121–22.]
Even with that expansion, I note that our reserve forces are significantly smaller than those of some of our NATO allies. The French army reserve is 305,000, the German 750,000, the Italian 550,000, and the Greek 350,000. Even the Belgians, with 160,000, have an army reserve almost as large as ours. In almost every case, the reservists will have had at least 12 months' regular experience. The only exception is the Belgians, whose reservists will have had a minimum of eight months' regular service.
To sum up, the present Army services youth training scheme has been only a qualified success. With nearly three years' experience under our belt, it needs modification. I believe that it should be replaced, at some small additional cost, with a scheme that gives 100 days of regular training to 15,000 young men and women every year. I believe that this scheme would be attractive to employers. I believe that it would offer a challenge and provide a pleasing financial reward to many young people. It could do much to strengthen the reserve forces which have such an important role to play if we are faced with a war or an emergency.
Of course, I do not expect my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement to say this morning that he is wholly won over by my argument—which he himself advanced only a few years ago—and that the money is ready and waiting in the kitty and that my proposed scheme will be introduced on Wednesday week. however, I hope that he will remember his earlier enthusiasm and will recall his own wise and robust speech delivered a mere six years ago. I hope that he will look seriously at the proposal. I hope that he will remember that many members of the public think that a little bit of military training would be good for many of our young people.
Meanwhile, I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State whether he has anything more to say about another proposal for strengthening the reserve forces which I put


forward in the Army debate on 30 January and which he may recall as I think he was sitting on the Front Bench at the time. In that debate, I pointed out that there was
one way in which we could enormously enhance our helicopter capacity at very small extra cost to the defence budget"—[Official Report, 30 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 1155]
It has been estimated that there are some 550 civilian helcopters and that about 350 of them are civilian versions of military helicopters. Many civilian helicopters are operated by pilots who were trained in the armed forces. Many of the larger civilian helicopters, such as the converted Sea Kings and the Super Pumas, are now working in the North sea oilfields.
For many years, the Admiralty has had a scheme for taking over a number of British merchant ships in an emergency, and public funds used to be spent to modify those ships so that they could swiftly adapt to their wartime role. In much the same way, I believe that 250 of our civilian helicopters could become part of a territorial army of the air. Some modification of the earmarked helicopters might be needed. Extra wireless sets and identification equipment would have to be set side. Some extra training would have to be given to the pilots and the ground crews, and special arrangements would have to be worked out with the operating companies and their clients.
Of course, it would be unrealistic to think that civilian helicopters could be pitchforked straight into a major battle, but the existence of this territorial army of the air, which would be almost as large as the Army's existing helicopter fleet, would mean that every service helicopter now stationed in this country could be given an overseas role. The creation of this territorial army of the air would be the most cost-effective way of filling some of the gaps in our military helicopter capacity.
Since I made that suggestion on 30 January, there have been letters to The Times in support of this proposal from Field-Marshal Lord Carver, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, and Mr. Michael Rankin, the director of the British Maritime League, who pointed out, sadly, that the old Admiralty scheme for equipment for merchant ships had fallen into abeyance. I note that the proposal for mobilising civilian helicopters was raised also during the recent North Atlantic Assembly meeting in Brussels by that distinguished Dutch General, General de Jager, who is chairman of the NATO military committee and who pointed out that the Dutch had a mobilisation scheme for civilian earth-moving equipment. It seems that the Dutch have an up-to-date register of bulldozers and that their drivers would be required to report in the first hours of an emergency, which might perhaps be more effective than sticking one's finger in the dyke.
The proposals which I put forward in the Army debate on 30 January were not entirely new, because I had put them forward some four years ago in the Ministry of Defence. I suspect that the Ministry of Defence is aware of the existence of these civilian helicopters and is aware of their potential value in an emergency. I very much fear, however, that it has not yet even reached the point of talking seriously to the main helicopter contractors about the precise way in which civilian helicopters could be mobilised. Do we have service wireless sets ready to put into the helicopters? Do we have suitable "identification

friend or foe" equipment to put on those helicopters? Have we had any talks about mobilisation plans with the civilian helicopter pilots who have served in the regular forces?
I am glad that the Government have plans for a helicopter squadron of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, but so much more could be done with just a little more planning. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State can give us some positive information about progress in the Ministry's thinking on the territorial army of the air. I hope also that it will not take the Ministry another four years to come up with a sensible scheme for giving a short period of military training to some of the young people who would like to undertake it and who could give valuable service to their country.

Dr. David Owen: We are all grateful to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) for giving us an opportunity to debate this topic. At root is the role of the Ministry of Defence in the community and its broader role in the affairs of the nation. One of the consequences of the decision to go for wholly professional armed services—which, on balance, has been proved to be correct—has been to make the Ministry of Defence constrict itself and to have a tendency to cocoon itself in a wholly military atmosphere. That was always one of the things people feared when we went for a wholly professional force.
One of the strengths of the previous system, in which people were compelled to serve in one of the four services, which included the Royal Marines, was that a wide range of people were involved in military affairs. That meant that the armed services were not cocooned and that there was a much wider spread of knowledge and involvement in and commitment to the armed services.
Memories fade. The second world war is long gone and many people have never served in the armed services. That being the case, we have to make an effort to ensure that the Ministry of Defence does not see its role in a narrow way. The Ministry of Defence, together with its civilian employees, is a major economic force in the national economy. Apart from the Department of Health and Social Security it is our largest single employer. It was right for the Government in 1983 to see that the military and civilian employment aspects of the Ministry of Defence made a contribution to youth training. A number of people in the Chamber today were deeply sceptical about whether the armed forces youth training scheme would be successful.
Those of us who have served in the Ministry of Defence are well aware of the deep-seated hostility to any involvement by the volunteer held by most of the senior military figures. This scheme had the smack of being reluctantly forced on the chiefs of staff by Ministers, but the chiefs of staff went along with it, confident that it would never work. The figures of uptake are deplorable. The armed forces youth training scheme was launched in August 1983 with the intention of providing 5,000 places a year. Up to the end of last year only 1,500 youngsters had accepted places. That is an indictment of the way the scheme has been run and not of the people who could have been encouraged to go into it.
It is important to focus on the other part of the scheme, the Ministry's civil employment training scheme. That was expected to provide about 2,000 places a year, but only something like 650 received training. One cannot go


to any of the military establishments without realising the depth of the training commitment to the professional service man. That training is of a high calibre. Many of the people in civilian youth training schemes are green with envy when they see the training facilities provided by the Ministry of Defence. It has the capacity and the skilled instructors and standards that would undoubtedly benefit our youth training effort.
The first question we have to ask ourselves is whether the armed services and the civilian employers in the Ministry of Defence will in April participate fully in a two-year youth training scheme. The Minister nods his head so I assume they will. That is good. One of the criticisms of the extension of the youth training scheme is that the Government have not yet given sufficient commitment to funding the extra training capacity that is fundamental for such a scheme. There is no point in taking people into these schemes for two years unless there is an extra input of resources to ensure that the scheme has a much stronger training element than hitherto. The inadequate effort we put into skill training is a scandal. Only yesterday, the head of the Manpower Services Commission made a scathing speech about the shortage of skills in the nation.
Whatever view one holds about politics or about the Budget, it must be of paramount importance to increase the skills of our youth. We must be ready to seize the opportunities of a new technological era. Few Government Departments are better able to set an example by increasing training for today's youth than the Ministry of Defence. It is fundamental that the chiefs of staff are told straight that they have to co-operate in this scheme and give a great deal more commitment to it than they have done hitherto.
I hope that as a result of this debate the Minister will go away strengthened for his part in the bureaucratic struggle.
The hon. Member for Beckenham said that the service which has contributed most and got the most out of the scheme is the Royal Air Force. My affection for the Royal Navy is well known and the Royal Marines is second to it. Anyone who works in the Ministry of Defence knows that the most open-minded of the services is the Royal Air Force. Perhaps that is because it is the youngster of our services and also because many of its senior officers have had a wider training and come from a more varied background. It is much easier to incorporate new ideas into the RAF than it is to incorporate them into the Army, the Royal Navy or the Royal Marines.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Royal Navy should opt out of the scheme. I vehemently oppose such a thing. The Royal Navy and the Royal Marines should play a full part in the scheme and above all the Army should have a role. What is to be done? I do not know what a realistic target figure should be, but we should not fix a target figure and then fail to fulfil it. This time let us have fixed target figures that will be fulfilled. The next question we must ask is why has this scheme failed—apart from the reasons of bureaucratic inertia and professional hostility. One of the reasons is that the standards for acceptance to the scheme are far too high and much too restrictive.
I have a suggestion of the utmost importance. In the United States the head-start programme has special help and positive action programmes for black and ethnic minorities. That programme has been given a powerful push because the Department of Defence at the Pentagon

made a major contribution to the programme right from the start. It deliberately took on a great number of people who were not even fluent in languages and who had problem backgrounds. It was thought that because of the nature of the armed services the people going into the training schemes would be living in a much more disciplined framework than exists in any of the normal youth training schemes. The scheme was therefore especially suitable for people from disadvantaged backgrounds who would be the hardest to train.
Our scheme is wholly voluntary and that is right, but the standards for acceptance ought not to be pitched so high, and the armed services should take into the scheme volunteers who have the least educational qualifications and some of the most difficult backgrounds. People who have been through the courts and who have been on probation and things like that should be taken on. There is a peculiarly strong sense of responsibility in the armed services, and that will mean that the scheme may cost a bit more. It may also mean that the ratio of trainers to trainees may have to be somewhat high. It is time that the Ministry of Defence was asked to take on some of the obligations that the nation requires of it, and the Ministry is in an advantageous position to try to deal with some of our most disadvantaged kids.

Mr. Wiggin: I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman says. At the time the scheme was introduced the armed services made the valid point that the entry standards for young people for YTS should not be different from those for the ordinary service man. The problem of age comes into this. I was interested in the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy has traditionally had serving boys, and if the services are prepared to take on 16-year-old boys as Regular soldiers, airmen and sailors, life would be a great deal easier. That point has caused a lot of difficulty about entry. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish the Ministry of Defence to take on the role of an educationist.

Dr. Owen: I am afraid that I do think so. The cost should not be borne by the armed services' budget but by the Manpower Services Commission's budget. It is not reasonable to ask that the cost should be borne by the armed services' budget which, heaven only knows, will be deeply stretched over the next few years. With a 7 per cent. reduction in real terms we cannot ask the armed services to bear the cost of a social responsibility. But the armed services are particularly well equipped to take on the obligation of the social responsibility and some of the stresses and strains of that, and should do so.
Now that the scheme will last for two years, it is easier to justify people of a lower educational attainment being taken on and being part of a head-start programme. It is much easier to justify taking on some kids with a truancy rate and a record of drug addiction or petty crime. Those are the very people who often are not accepted on the civilian youth training schemes because they are seen as being a disruptive force, as indeed they are. It is perfectly understandable that a factory or small employer would find that difficult. People in the probation service arid elsewhere cannot place such kids. The armed services could meet that need and we should ask them to do so.
The programme should last for three years, and during that time the kids would catch up and the head-start scheme would succeed. Educational attainments would be


improved and many would then apply to stay on in the armed services as professionals. At that juncture they should meet all the educational and other requirements for full-time professional service. The value of such a scheme has already been proven by its success in the United States and we could have such a scheme in Britain.

Mr. Jim Spicer: There is one problem in what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying. We are, and I hope that he is as well, thinking of a voluntary scheme. In my experience of drug addiction and the sort of people about whom he is talking, the voluntary nature of the scheme would have to be somewhat forcibly put, in order to get those people to enter into any scheme involving discipline and the armed forces.

Dr. Owen: Yes, there is no doubt that a kid who is on drugs will not volunteer to enter such a scheme. However, once they have gone through the withdrawal period and they are off drugs, they are often only too well aware how vulnerable they would be if they went back into their community to an atmosphere of urban decay and decline and a culture of drug-taking. I am advised that people believe that some children who have come off drugs, who have been on probation or have had some problems in the courts would volunteer because they are keen that they should be given a second chance, or even, one could argue, a first chance. Such people get depressed after endless applications for youth training schemes and constant refusal. It is then that they go back into crime or on to drugs. I believe that that is the experience of schoolmasters too. They feel that some of those people are attracted to the challenge of the armed services. They are often physically fit people who like the idea of some of the outdoor activities that would go with such a scheme. The young sailors' scheme has been referred to. Many people who are attracted initially into such schemes would not necessarily have high educational attainment and they often have high rates of truancy.
Somebody must make a start. We cannot let such kids go on with no chance. The needs are not being met by the existing system and it is much easier for the Government to do something. It is not wholly a matter for the Ministry of Defence. The Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of the Environment have a role to play. But private employers will not do much. It is extraordinarily difficult to ask them to take into youth training schemes kids with a bad record who will be bad risks and difficult to handle. It is my strong belief that the Ministry of Defence should he giving such a lead.
I have already made it clear that the money for such a scheme should not be taken from the Ministry of Defence budget. It must be funded by all of us. But let me deal with the cultural atmosphere. France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Holland, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Sweden and Switzerland do not have fully professional armed services. They have a system of volunteers. They do not do that purely and simply because it is cheaper. There is a philosophical point here. They want the armed services to be part of the life of the nation.
I am not arguing that we should go back on the earlier decision. We should keep the professional armed forces for as long as we humanly possibly can. The self-restraint and control that the Army in particular, and the Marines, have demonstrated in Northern Ireland has shown the

immense value of professional armed forces. The provocation, tension and strain of service in Northern Ireland would have been very difficult for a conscript service.
As our services become ever more sophisticated the need for ever more highly skilled people grows. A petty officer in the Navy these days is a highly skilled technician. The Navy is very different from what it was even 20 years ago. Therefore, I am not arguing against a professional armed force, although I am putting up a warning. I am not altogether sure how long Britain will be able to fund a fully professional armed service to the extent that we have been doing. I say bluntly that if people start saying that we must make slashing cuts in the British Army of the Rhine, I for one would be perfectly prepared to consider the continental system.
I am committed to a professional armed service as long as it is possible to maintain and sustain it. If our national economic difficulties go on and our national economic decline continues and we cannot fund the necessary level of armed services, we shall have to reconsider the matter. That is a separate point. It is part of the philosophy that underlies the resistance inside the Ministry of Defence to this scheme. The Ministry does not think that it has a social obligation. It thinks that it is all right to be cocooned in a wholly professional atmosphere, and it is wrong. If it is not forced in this small way to widen its horizons and to take on a social obligation—at no extra cost to the defence budget but at considerabl extra cost in terms of effort and energy—we shall all regret it.
I wish the Minister all strength to his elbow. Frankly, he will not be able to carry out such a scheme unless it is made abundantly clear on the Floor of the House of Commons, on as much of a cross-party basis as is humanly possible, that the scheme is, in origin, right. It has been badly conducted and poorly carried out and it has not had the necessary commitment.
The Secretary of State must bring the chiefs into a room and give them their marching orders. The Ministry of Defence is one of the best Ministries in Whitehall. When the Secretary of State says that something should be done, it is done. People must be told that the scheme will be given priority. The one thing that the Secretary of State must get from the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a commitment that the scheme will be funded by the MSC funds and not the Ministry of Defence. I hope that that message will go loud and clear to the Secretary of State and the Chancellor and that the Government will act quickly.

Mr. John Browne: I support the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart). The House not only congratulates him on it but is thankful to him for giving us this opportunity to have this important debate.
I strongly support the idea of voluntary military service. It is good for the youth of our nation and it is for the nation in that it enhances our defence capability. In addition, it enhances our social fabric, particularly the talents and occupations of our young people.
But, as the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has already said, the armed forces have consistently poured cold water on such ideas on the ground of cost. The budget should be shared not only by the MSC vote, but, if necessary, by the Departments of


Health and Social Security and the Home Office. Those Department have something to gain by having young people in the armed forces.
The second reason why the armed forces tend to pour cold water on the scheme is that they object to the mix with the regular forces. I am currently serving as a Territorial soldier in a regular infantry brigade—the 1st Infantry Brigade at Tidworth. I have seen that the integration of part-time and regular soldiers can work extremely well. There is a role to play.
I believe that defence is essentially capability times will. That is important, because if the capability or will is zero, the equation is nil. It is interesting to note that there is strong reason to suspect that Mr. Costa Mendez advised President Galtieri that the British did not have the will to defend the Falklands, primarily because we showed a lack of will by withdrawing forces from the east of Suez and the Mediterranean only a few years before.
This form of youth service and voluntary national service will enhance not only our capability but our will. The primary role of the armed forces is the defence of our national interest in times of war and peace and that implies two basic capabilities. First, we must exert a presence to deter aggression and to monitor or act in a surveillance role. Secondly, the most obvious role is to exert a decisive hitting power.
Modern sophisticated armed forces are extremely expensive. Integrated weapons systems and the highly trained and highly skilled manpower needed to operate them are very expensive, and the expense is growing fast. I believe that an issue which will haunt not only this Government but every Government for decades to come will be how we can continue to afford the enormous escalating bill for defence. I think that voluntary national service could have a tremendous impact on that bill.
The hitting power capability is highly sophisticated and therefore highly expensive. It is an ideal role for regular forces who often prove their excellence. The presence role is much less highly technical and involves little more than basic training. None the less, it is very important and involves a great deal of manpower. It concerns me greatly that exercise Brave Defender showed that we are woefully lacking in the presence role in the defence of the country if it comes to a war. For the total defence of this nation to be truly effective, we need much more manpower, particularly in what I call the presence, surveillance and deterrence role. I think that that is ideally fitted for the Territorial Army, the reserve forces and the home defence force.
It is interesting that at a time of need for manpower, which exercise Brave Defender must have written large in the eyes of Ministers in the Ministry of Defence, we have high youth unemployment. What a marvellous coincidence. I agree strongly with the right hon. Member for Devonport in that I think that the armed forces have a part to play in the social role of the Government. That must be taken on board by my hon. Friend the Minister.
I agreed to speak for less than five minutes, so I shall say no more. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham. I shall not repeat what he has said, because I agree with it, but I should like to thank him for his motion and say that I strongly support it. The idea of applying the youth training scheme to voluntary national service is excellent, and it is in the national interest. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take serious note of his proposal.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I join other hon. Gentlemen in welcoming the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), with whom I have worked closely on other matters unconnected with today's debate. We have had an interesting and excellent debate so far.
I hope that the House will bear with me while I try to analyse some of the background as to how we got to our present position. We have to put the debate in the context of a growing interest among the public and in the House in schemes of national and community service.
The scheme that has been presented this morning does not stand on its own. Many other organisations and personalities have put forward schemes on parallel lines, if not of the same strength or in the same way. The whole area of community or national service for young people is an idea which had been persistently, if intermittently, attractive to politicians of all parties. It has also found widespread support among the public, including supporters of all parties. That is not surprising, certainly at a time of high unemployment and of a shortage of skilled people.
The idea that young people should apply themselves to the benefit of others and do useful work while acquiring the habit of diligence and the attitude of service, has a compelling simplicity, especially when so many young people are cooling their heels on the dole and many of the general public suspect that they are acquiring an outlook which will serve them and society ill in later life.
In 1980 and 1981 an organisation called Youth Call emerged as a movement for compulsory community-national service. An associated poll by The Observer at that time found a majority of the public in support of a national community service. Later, in 1984, there was a further wave of interest. Opinion polls were conducted and given extensive coverage in national newspapers. The surprisingly high figure of 80 per cent. favoured either voluntary or compulsory community national service. An associated study was carried out by David Marsland which claimed to identify hundreds of thousands of jobs which could usefully be done by participants in a national community service scheme. It is clear that the notion of this form of scheme and service by young people strikes a chord with the general public: and it is right that it should receive the most serious consideration by the House.
I want to spend some time on the principles which should guide that consideration. This morning's debate has already shown that there are some serious ambivalences in what is intended among many people who might have a general concern and think that some form of national or community service is a good idea.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the armed services would have a very important role to play in the theme he is developing?

Mr. Sheerman: Indeed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my theme because this is a debate which we should take seriously, and I want to underline and analyse some of the background. I think that that is how we should deal with a serious debate, which I think the hon. Member for Beckenham intended.
We must not only acknowledge but state with the utmost vehemence that there are hundreds of thousands of


young people who are currently without work and without hope. There can be little doubt that their talents are wasting, their skills, if they have them, are withering, and their attitudes to life and work are deteriorating. There are 500,000 people under 25 who have been unemployed for over six months. A third of a million are unemployed and have never had a job since leaving school. Meanwhile, there are jobs to be done to the benefit of the community in social services, the health service and in caring of all kinds.
There is work to be done in the environment beautifying our cities and repairing and building the national stock of housing, railways, roads and canals, just to name a few. We must not assume that the unemployed are idle in their enforced leisure, but we know enough about the number who desperately want to work and do something creative to know that satisfying, constructive work is badly needed.
Secondly, in these days of refusal by the Government to acknowledge the need to support and properly fund the many badly needed services, we must proclaim the fundamental importance of introducing all young people to the values of caring for others, respect for the environment and commitment to public service. Not only are such values sadly lacking among many of the alienated youth in the inner cities, but they are lacking, perhaps more so, among the young ex-public school fogies whose lives are sheltered from the realities of life for those without the benefit of a silver spoon, and in whom the absence of caring attitudes is, for that reason, more reprehensible.
Thirdly, we must note the importance to employers of having young employees who have had an opportunity to develop their personal qualities, can work easily with others and have self-reliance and a capacity for initiative and leadership, to which a period in service to the community could undoubtedly contribute. Self-esteem, a sense of responsibility and overall maturity are of value not just for the individual but for the employer and society as a whole.

Mr. Jim Spicer: The hon. Gentleman is developing his theme extremely well, but I wonder when he will address himself to the main point of the debate. He has avoided any discussion about national service and the terms of the debate.

Mr. Sheerman: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. However, I should like to proceed with my analysis and then I shall come back to that point.
All those arguments point strongly in the direction of national service for youth, but there are some dangers. Once I have looked at some of the dangers, I shall come back to the terms of the motion. The first danger is the spectre of compulsion. Schemes that proclaim their voluntary character often become, in practice or through the dictates of implementing them equitably, overlaid with compulsion, as one of the prime movers of Youth Call, Jane Prior, found to her distress. We have begun to witness that in the youth training scheme.
I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) develop his argument, which revealed the difference between what was intended for a national service scheme in the armed forces and what it might develop into. Would it be a scheme, as is intended by the hon. Member for Beckenham, which would

eventually supply a military need and be an asset to the armed forces, or would it be a scheme for the most alienated, deprived and unqualified of our young people, to give them a short, sharp shock? The ambivalence of that came out clearly in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I also had a feeling that an element of compulsion to go on to those schemes was an underlying theme of the right hon. Gentleman's general argument.
The first danger is the spectre of compulsion. Secondly, there is the danger that those schemes can become confined to young people who are unemployed and disadvantaged, as the right hon. Member for Devonport said. Hence, they often entrench the very things that one is trying to get rid of. They entrench social division and resentment because they are for a particular sort of young person—not for all youth, but for a particular sort of problem youth. That is a very real danger.
Many people see clearly the advantages of national service of one sort or another for other people's unemployed children, while, of course, their own will be far too busy doing important things such as taking A-levels and preparing for university, or even going on to a commission in the Army, Navy or Air Force.
Thirdly, there is the problem of how young people's cooperation and commitment is managed—the essence of the service ideal. How can it be retained in the long term, in the face of any element or threat of compulsion? Fourthly, there is the practical problem of payment. If it is too low, compulsion becomes necessary to enforce participation, and the schemes run the risk of the stigma of cheap labour. If the payment is too high, the cost may bear comparison with alternatives that have more value for young people and society as a whole. Then there is the problem of job substitution. There is little net additional virtue in a scheme that displaces as many good works as it accomplishes.
Finally, there is militarism, and the point at which a concern to encourage caring dissipates into a desire to promote self-discipline. That is to be promoted by the curious paradox of attempting to induce it by an overdose of discipline imposed externally through a military regime. One acute observer described Youth Cell in 1981 as
an unholy alliance of cranks and aging militarists".
I do not think that most people who have contributed to the debate can be classified under either of those heads, but the ideals of community service deserve better champions than that.

Dr. Alan Glyn: The hon. Gentleman said that he is against compulsion. Does he mean only complusion for military service, or would he be against compulsion for a scheme that combined service to the community and military service?

Mr. Sheerman: I should be fundamentally against compulsion for any such scheme, as my colleagues and I have been fundamentally against any compulsion to enter youth training schemes or community programmes.
At the end of the day, any proposal for a form of national service must face the fundamental issue provided so effectively by another organisation, called Youth Choice, which grew up to oppose the ill-thought-out proposals of Youth Call. What is it that young people want and need? Instead of treating young people as a problem to be eliminated, we need to recognise them as a potential to be enlisted. In recent surveys, while 80 per cent. of all


respondents favoured national community service of some sort, 82 per cent. of those aged 15 to 24 preferred a proper job or a college place to any sort of community service. The most pressing problem for those young people and our society as a whole is how to train those young people and how to enlist them as full, contributing and valued members of our society. There is room in the programmes for all young people's education, training and preparation for life for an element of community or national service, but it must be part of a comprehensive scheme for helping young people to achieve the transition to the financial, occupational and personal independence to which they are entitled. That is the anlaysis that lies behind the motion that we are debating.
The Labour party believes in having a fully professional army. It believes that it should be a voluntary army, not an enlisted or enforced army. We do not believe that there should be compulsory national service. We also believe, with other hon. Members who have spoken today, that there is an enormous capacity and capability for the armed services to train people. As others have said this morning, the tragedy of our nation is that there are about 4 million unemployed people. We also have a shortage of skilled people, which is affecting industries from the high-tech industries to an industry that the Minister and I know well—the textile industry.
We are having the debate in the context of hon. Members calling for the Army, the Navy and the Air Force to take an active role in skills training for young people. In that context, the proposals will take money from other organisations doing similar jobs. Conservative Members seem to think, as the right hon. Member for Devonport said, that such a scheme would be funded not by the defence budget, but by that of the Manpower Services Commission. That is rather odd. There is mass youth unemployment, but when all the figures are boiled down, the MSC spends less than £1.2 billion on those 400,000 young people. Moreover, it is ironic that although we are changing from a one-year to a two-year scheme, the budget will be. practically the same.
Conservative Members have already said that we cannot get skills training on the cheap. We know that from our experience in the services. People cannot be trained to be competent, to have confidence in themselves and to make a real contribution to the services on the cheap. Training is expensive. The quality of training, the machinery, technology and the skills of the instructors at military establishments in Devonport, Portsmouth and elsewhere leave one full of envy by comparison with our youth training scheme, the community programme, skillcentres, or even our colleges of further education. The services take skills training very seriously.
If we believe in training our people, whether through the armed services, the MSC or through our education system, we must pay for it. The proposals in the motion come ill at a time when the Government have closed the skillcentre network. Interestingly enough, many of the instructors at skillcentres were trained in the armed forces, and in many ways the techniques used resemble those found in the armed services. Nevertheless, one third of our skillcentres have been closed, and many of them in the areas of high unemployment.
Most of the industrial training boards have been closed. Apparently we do not need planning in most of our industrial sectors. The levy system that ensured that employers carried out training has been swept away, and

as a result there is now total dependence on voluntarism in training. Our employers pay only 0·15 per cent. of turnover towards training, compared with 2 or 3 per cent. in our competitor countries of Germany, Japan and America. Although a massive youth training scheme has been introduced, there has been a collapse in our apprenticeship system.
What on earth are we doing discussing this motion? Of course the Labour party believes in skills training. It would be very much in favour of using spare capacity in the armed services to train young people to a high level of competence, and of using all available resources. It is a disgrace to our nation if young people and adults are unemployed and without skills at a time when there is a capacity to train them in skillcentres or in the armed services. I go around the country and have seen for myself that the record of the past seven years is one of closures. Indeed, prime training capacity has been lost in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Devonport—

Dr. Owen: I do not quite understand whether the hon. Gentleman is in favour of expanding the armed forces' youth training scheme to two years and of finding the money to continue it. We all want to know the answer to that question.

Mr. Sheerman: I did not interrupt the right hon. Gentleman when he made his speech and I let him make it in his own way. However, I shall come to that point shortly.
The Labour party opposed the introduction of a youth training scheme in the services because it did not believe that a link with a military element in the programme—

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Sheerman: I shall not give way as I wish to finish my point.
We opposed the introduction of a youth training scheme in the armed services and we still oppose its introduction. Indeed, the take-up has been very small and represents a failure. Hon. Members have said that the small take-up is due to mischievous chiefs of staff not being in favour of the scheme. They say that Chiefs of Staff never wanted it, and have prevented it. But I do not believe that. I believe that young people were not attracted to the idea. There is some truth in the argument that the army did not go into the scheme very enthusiastically, but if that was so, the Government should have said that the programme was something that the Government wanted and should be delivered.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): Is the hon. Gentleman saying that in the unlikely event of a Labour Government the armed forces youth training scheme would be stopped?

Mr. Sheerman: That would be a very serious consideration. After the next general election, the Labour Government will consider the skills needed and the potential for delivering them. The Labour party has nothing against using the capability of the armed services for training young people. I come back again to the speech by the Minister in 1980. The first year involved basic military training. The Labour party would certainly be against that as a component. The next part was community work, and the third part was industrial and craft training.


I do not think that the Labour party would find anything wrong with the latter two parts of the scheme. A Labour Government would find nothing wrong with using the armed services capability for training, but they would not want military training. The difference between the two types of training should be stressed.
The right hon. Member for Devonport started by talking about the parallel with the head-start programme, and the desire to use the fine skills that exist in the armed services to train people. He talked about a scandalous lack of investment in skill training, and I absolutely agree with that. However, once one starts talking about using the armed services for training, two arguments quickly emerge. For example, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) wants 15,000 people to be trained for 100 days with the possibility of them being interested in becoming recruited as professionals into the services. The hon. Gentleman believes in that argument, and I accept that it has a respectable pedigree. But I must say that I do not agree with it. However, it is disturbing that the right hon. Member for Devonport should begin with that sort of argument, but end up identifying the role of the armed services as being targeted on the low achiever, those with drug problems, and those suffering from the dreadful deprivation of our inner cities.
The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) put his finger on the flaw in the argument. It is common sense—the take-up of the youth training scheme in the armed services bears this out—that there would be minimal take-up of two or three-year schemes for underprivileged youngsters unless they were made compulsory. The Social Democrats have taken a great interest in this. Indeed, they take a great interest in anything which the opinion polls say might win them some votes. The danger of the alliance's attitude is that implicit in its arguments is that it would make the scheme compulsory for underprivileged youngsters.

Dr. Owen: I specifically excluded that suggestion. It is a typical slur from the hon. Gentleman. I made it clear that that was neither our wish or our intention. Indeed, it would be completely against my philosophy and of that of the Social Democratic party. The hon. Gentleman has widened the debate into discussing a national volunteer community service, although I thought it was confined to the armed services, but he still does not accept that the present services scheme is training people. I gather that he would not wish that scheme to continue, but similar schemes have been used in many countries to give youngsters a head start. Some police forces have taken on low achievers to try to encourage black people to join the force. The idea is to give people a special start. The hon. Gentleman, with his Socialist philosophy, should be in favour of such a scheme.

Mr. Sheerman: My Socialist philosophy, which the right hon. Gentleman so recently shared, leads me to believe that we should have special programmes for underprivileged youngsters, but the Labour party does not believe that they should come within the ambit of the armed services and it does not believe that they should be made compulsory. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to suggest that I am casting a slur on his speech or his reputation, if that was necessary, by saying that the logic of his argument leads to compulsion. He did not say that

he agreed with compulsion, but the logic of his argument leads to that conclusion. If there was no compulsion, youngsters would not take up the scheme.
When one gets behind the right hon. Gentleman's soft words and tones, one finds the more militaristic wing of the argument. I do not wish to be too hard on the hon. Member for Beckenham, but he used the language not of the short, sharp shock, which proved so disastrous for our young offenders, but of the short, sharp challenge. The right hon. Member for Devonport and Conservative Members have something in common. They believe that short, sharp shocks for delinquent youngsters, for youngsters with problems and for low achievers is the way to sort them out. Anyone who read the fascinating analysis of the right hon. Gentleman's political ideas that was written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) will have seen the interesting link between his ideas and those of the Tory party on short, sharp challenges.

Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman's speech is neither short nor sharp.

Mr. Sheerman: Indeed. The interventions threw me a little off the main thrust of my speech, but I shall end now.
The Labour party wants a professional Army. It does not want a national service that brings in 15,000 people for 100 days and pays them double the YTS training allowance. The Labour party believes that we must expand all our resources to train our people to their fullest potential. Youngsters are crying out for such training. The Labour party admires the competence of our professional armed services and believes that they could play a major role in a unified and co-ordinated attempt to bring British youngsters to the level of skills and competence that has been achieved by our industrial competitors. However, we do not want such training to have a military element. Some hon. Members may say that the Opposition want to have their cake and eat it, but we believe that that is a sensible alternative.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): It may be convenient to the House if I intervene now. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) on the wording of his motion, which I commend to the House. I am grateful for his kind comments about our reserve forces, and I praise his research skills in revealing my past.
The Government have given the reserve forces the high priority that they deserve. We have set about the expansion of the reserves for all three services, and we have reason to be proud of what we have achieved. I shall explain how far we have got, and what we plan for the future.
We are making good progress with the planned expansion of the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Marines Reserve. Thanks to an excellent response to our recruiting advertising, the Royal Naval Reserve's strength is close to the target we set ourselves, and the Royal Marines Reserve is well on target to reach its expanded ceiling of 1,580 during the next few years.
The Territorial Army had done just as well. I am pleased to say that it is now more than 77,000 strong, an increase of about 18,000 since 1979. The current annual increase is in excess of the 3,000 a year required to meet


expansion targets. The second phase of our plans includes the formation of six new infantry battalions, two more Royal Engineers airfield damage repair squadrons and a new Army Air Corps squadron. That shows the scale of what we are achieving.
We have enjoyed similar success with the Home Service force. About 92 per cent. of its strength turned out for exercise Brave Defender last September and, despite its recent formation, it proved to be fully capable of discharging its central task of guarding key points. Since the beginning of last year, 42 of the eventual 47 companies have begun to form, and recruitment has reached 69 per cent. of an establishment of nearly 5,000.
The Royal Air Force Reserve forces have also made strides. The Royal Auxiliary Air Force especially has been undergoing a major expansion since 1979 from a strength of a mere 250 towards about 1,300—a fivefold increase which illustrates the importance that we attach to the reserves. That expansion has led to the assumption of some new roles for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, including ground defence, air defence gunnery, movements and aeromedical evacuation.
The Royal Naval Auxiliary service has a slightly different status as an unpaid civilian volunteer service. It has a vital wartime role in support of the Navy at key United Kingdom ports and anchorages. Its tasks now include the manning and running of about a third of the vessels that would be needed in those areas, and this splendid force will be increasing in numbers from the present 2,800 to 3,000. Recruiting for this is well under way.
Of course, this pattern of expansion throughout our reserve forces would be of little value if we had not at the same time produced the equipment that they need. The scale of this varies greatly according to their roles. Some reservists are intended to release individual Regular service men in time of crisis for tasks which only they can undertake; in other cases, reservists will form up in complete units alongside regular units. Last year, for example, we announced several trials into the employment of Royal Auxiliary Air Force and RAF volunteer reserve personnel—70 strong—in several further roles, including a 2,000—strong auxiliary support force similar to the Army's Home Service force, a trial of two university air squadrons of RAF volunteer reserve instructors which, if successful, would release qualified flying instructors to the front line, the formation of a further RAFVR intelligence flight at Strike Command to provide intelligence support at headquarters and front-line units, and a two-year trial into the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of recruiting RAF volunteer reservists to serve as aircrew in regular RAF squadrons, in aircraft such as Nimrod, MR and VC1Os. Other possible uses of reservists, in ground and aircrew roles, are under consideration for the future.
The take-up and use of civilian helicopters was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, and he has taken up the issue in single-service debates. The cost of arming civilian helicopters would be extremely high. In the current financial climate, the installation, support and crew training involved with weapon systems alone would be prohibitively expensive. However, it is clear that larger civilian helicopters could undertake a number of important tasks. We are studying this possibility in the wide-ranging

examination of the future role of support helicopters, about which I gave details to the House during the RAF debate on 26 February.
Against this background of expansion we are investing in new equipment for the reserves. For example, by the middle of 1986 all 11 RNR sea-training centres will be equipped with the new River class of fleet minesweeper, one of which, HMS Spey, was launched by my wife. New fast patrol boats should be in service by the autumn.
But it is not enough even to provide men and equipment. Thorough training is also essential if our reserves are to be fitted to meet the responsibilities that are placed on them. We shall maintain our campaign to educate employers and persuade them of the importance of offering employees every assistance in the continued participation in reserve force activities. The new independent national committee for employer liaison under the chairmanship of Mr. Tommy McPherson, is intended to reinforce this process. Employers' wholehearted support is vital to our plans
All in all, I believe that the Government can be proud of this record. As I have indicated, we have a wide range of improvements under way, and I can assure the House that under this Government the reserves will be no less of a priority in the future.
I would like also to take this opportunity to mention the current manning situation in the armed forces. Although there are continuing shortfalls in trained strengths for officers of some 1,000, or 2·7 per cent., service men and women's numbers are very satisfactory, being only 900, or 0·3 per cent., down on trained requirement. However, these overall figures do obscure larger shortfalls in particular areas, especially specialists, where competition for available manpower is traditionally fierce in the labour market, and the attractions of alternative employment outside the forces that much greater. Shortages also in part reflect the overriding control of ceilings on total manpower, covering both trained numbers and those under training. I am happy to say that recruitment overall to the Regular forces remains generally satisfactory. Most recruiting targets are being met. Voluntary outflow has not reached a critical level although it is causing concern, especially for Army officers.
My hon. Friend has at some length questioned the value of the armed services youth training scheme. This is, of course, part of the overall and wider youth training scheme which was introduced by the Government in 1983 because far too many young people were entering the labour market without skills or qualifications. We offered a year's broad-based training and planned work experience to 16 and some 17-year-olds and, three years later, the statistics of success speak for themselves. Since 1983, more than a million youngsters have joined YTS; two thirds of them go into work, further education or further training afterwards.
YTS has indeed been successful but the Government recognised that it could be made better. It was apparent that many youngsters on YTS and their employees wanted more occupationally relevant training, building on the foundation that we had already established. We recognised also that we should aim to offer all YTS entrants the chance to gain a recognised vocational qualification or credit towards one. So from next month we shall be investing £1 billion a year of public money, offering two years' training to 16-year-old school leavers and one year for 17-year-old leavers. Two year YTS will be an integral


and permanent part of vocational education and training provision offering opportunities for qualifications which employers respect and young people value.
Comprehensive provision is, therefore, already available to meet the training needs of 16 and 17-years-old, including those youngsters who are interested in taking part in the armed services. Our scheme has been in place since August 1983 and runs parellel to the civilian YTS. Since the start of the scheme the ASYTS has attracted 9,000 applications for some 6,000 places. Of those applying 2,700 have been accepted and over 2,200 trainees have already attended courses. I am particularly pleased that 860 youngsters have subsequently converted to regular service engagements. Not surprisingly, having acquired a taste for service life, trainees want the benefit of service pay and work. Although I am disappointed that it has not been possible to fill all the places available on the scheme, I am nonetheless satisfied that the ASYTS has made a useful contribution in the important area of offering young people training and worthwhile work experience. Many of those who have entered the scheme have done well and some have reached impressive standards. A wide range of trades and skills are taught, including driving, secretarial, cooking and electronics. Excellent opportunities are also offered for pariticipation in sports and other activities. Trainees should find that their prospects of finding a job after completing the scheme will be enhanced considerably by the high quality of training that they receive in the services.
Of course, ASYTS trainees are required to train and work alongside regular counterparts on existing courses, whose own standards are high. No doubt our requirements for high standards of entry have an effect on the entry level. However, if we were to lower minimum standards the weaker trainees would have difficulty in keeping up with the training and work experience, and that would be unfair to the individuals concerned. I listened with care to the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) about the high entry standard that we demand. I shall consider what he said about a possible lowering of the standard to accommodate the wider scheme that he has in mind.
I illustrate my point by saying that in this financial year we are offering 2,209 places, and so far there have been 2,407 applicants, of which 852 have been accepted and 810 have attended courses. Although we have not filled all the places available, there has been a healthy rise in the level of recruitment in the latter part of 1985. All of the months from August-November set new strength records for the scheme, producing an average strength of 700 for those months. Hon Members will be aware of our plans to extend the current one-year scheme to a two-year scheme in line, as far as possible, with the civilian YTS. I am happy to give the right hon. Member for Devonport that assurance. The two-year YTS aims, to give all trainees the opportunity to seek improved courses that result in recognised qualifications. We hope that it will prove possible for trainees to be on courses by April 1987 which ofer the opportunity of attaining a qualification or credit towards one. In the transitional period some courses will not offer the prospect of a qualification at their end, whilst we explore ways of complying with these new arrangements. Nonetheless, such courses will continue to offer valuable training and work experience.
I believe that the ASYTS is providing, and will continue to provide, an excellent opportunity for young people to gain training and work experience, and we wish that there were greater demand for it. However, it is not, and was never intended to be, any kind of an answer to the relatively minimal and very specialised recruitment and manning difficulties that exist in the armed forces, the basis of which are being properly investigated and which we shall do our utmost to remedy. I wish to put on record that within the Ministry of Defence we have an excellent civilian YTS scheme and about 680 youngsters are on it at present. The scheme is split almost equally between the United Kingdom and Germany.
However, I regret to have to say that, laudable though the objective is, basic training on that sort of scale for so short a period would be questionable both for the individual and in defence policy terms. The modern Army is professional and highly trained. However, I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Devonport about the dangers of a professional force and the MOD being somewhat cocooned from the community at large, and we must take his observations and comments on board and consider them, I accept what he said about the possible dangers. Training is specialised, in depth and inevitably expensive. Given the finite resources available, it is essential to achieve an adequate return on our investment in training in the form of many years of service by the individual soldier.
As the House is aware, it is our policy for the Army to maximise its deterrent force by shifting resources and manpower from support functions to the frontline operational units. Part of this policy of trimming the tail and sharpening the teeth has been to ensure that the training organisation is maintained at the most economic level to meet its task. Consequently there is now little, if any, spare capacity in our training organisation. We simply, therefore, do not have the headroom on anything like the scale envisaged by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham to train 15,000 additional junior soldiers.
Inevitably, there is also a cost aspect to that. On 1985–86 capitation rates, 15,000 recruits on strength for 100 days would cost some £40 million in pay and personal costs alone. I have to say to my hon. Friend that I see little prospect of such funding being made available from the defence budget or by the Manpower Services Commission. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Devonport and other hon. Members who have spoken in that they did not suggest that the funding for the wider scheme that they advocate should come from our increasingly tight Ministry of Defence budget, but from wider Government resources.
It would also be fair to say that the young man or woman would get little benefit from only three months in the Army. It is too short a period to appreciate the practical and stimulating side of Army life, and to do more, than merely "square bashing". There would be no opportunity properly to learn any of the specialists skills that together make up the panoply of the modern Army. For the purposes of youth training in skills which are valuable in the civil life of this country, I believe we must continue to look to the armed services youth training scheme which, as I mentioned earlier, offers sound training and is now to be extended over two years and allied to a trade qualification.
In the specific case of candidates wanting Army experience between school and university, which I think


my hon. Friend mentioned as an example of those who might be attracted by his scheme, I should explain that we recognise the value of short-term attachments for potential officers, and make provision for it, in a number of ways. For the candidate of clear officer potential there is the opportunity to do a short course at the royal military academy, Sandhurst followed by up to 18 months' experience on a unit attachment with a short service limited commission—about 50 a year are taken in on that basis—prior to going up to university. I should emphasise that the SSLC is for top quality candidates who will be ambassadors for the Army in their university careers. Many of them take up regular commissions or join the Territorial Army later. Another opportunity, this time for those whose officer potential is less clear-cut, is provided candidates, mostly school leavers, considering entering the competition for a regular commission. To enhance their leadership qualities and provide a foretaste of Army life they can be sent to one of the training depots of the divisions or corps of the Army. Again, this "O" type engagement, as it is called, is relatively limited in numbers, there are only 270 at present, and geared to officer candidates. Clearly, they are not an appropriate vehicle for an expansion of the numbers of ordinary school leavers sought by my hon. Friend. But they illustrate the importance we attach to attracting the best young people into the armed forces, and to giving them the right opportunity to succeed.
When asked yesterday at Question Time by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who has pursued this theme, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
I know my hon. Friend's views on this but it would mean an enormous change in the whole of our defence policy which is founded on professional Armed Services, and which has served the country well. Although I know that he would like to give many young people an opportunity of belonging to something like the Armed Services I do not think I can promise him anything on this so far as I can see in the future. We prefer to rely on the Armed Services youth training scheme to give some people the opportunity ."—[Official Report, 20 March 1986; Vol 94, c. 410.]
That sums up the Government's view, and while I am conscious of an increasing interest on all sides of the House in the sort of scheme that my hon. Friend has in mind, I can hold out no hope of a change in our policy in the foreseeable future. Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the wording of his motion, which I commend to the House.

Mr. John Wilkinson: We have been fortunate to have this motion introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), who has immense experience in this area and has consistently produced imaginative schemes for the improvement of our armed forces, particularly for the Army. We have also been fortunate to have the considered response of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement on behalf of the Ministry of Defence.
I would not wish the debate to be too narrow. It was good that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) alluded to the overall strategic context within which we must consider the issues before us. The fact is that defence expenditure is to decrease in real terms during the years ahead. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of

State for Defence is formulating a minor review to see whether all our commitments and programmes can be carried out within the budgetary allocations that are anticipated. In my judgment, there will be a real danger that we shall not be able to carry out all our commitments or to see to fruition all the equipment programmes which our armed services would desire. In other words, something has to give.
Many Conservative Members have always insisted that a cost-effective option for the Government in those circumstances is to make increased use of the volunteer reserves and the auxiliaries who are paid only when they train or are used. My hon. Friend outlined the significant enhancements which have already taken place in our reserve forces in all three services. We are all delighted that they have occurred, and it is a credit to the Government. We see further potential along those lines.
Thirty years ago the 1956 White Paper announced the end of conscription. In that year there were 770,000 men and women under arms in the British armed forces. Today the figure is less than half of that as the number has fallen to 327,000. One key and crucial responsibility is to carry out the vital NATO commitment, the Brussels treaty commitment of the British Army of the Rhine, which involves 55,000 men plus a tactical air force on the continent of Europe in peacetime, with all volunteer forces. That major continental commitment is essentially a manpower intensive commitment, and in time of emergency or war we plan greatly to increase the strength of BAOR and, indeed, to more than double it. This can be done only by weakening the British home base, so it is more important than ever that we should have strong reserves to augment the front line in Germany and to beef up the defence of the home base.
Our reserve forces are woefully inadequate and constitute some 290,000 men and women—0·5 per cent. of the population. They include the Ulster Defence Regiment as well as all the other reserve formations. Our reserve forces are clearly inadequate compared with those of our neighbours. All the main continental neutrals have reserve forces far larger than ours—for example, the Swedes, the Swiss, the Yugoslays, and, indeed, even, the Austrians. Every Warsaw pact country has many more reserves that we have, except for Hungary, and every NATO country has far larger reserve forces than ours, except for the Netherlands, Portugal and Canada. As a percentage of our population, our reserves are only 0·5 per cent., whereas in NATO as a whole the percentage is 1·7 per cent., in Warsaw pact countries it is 1·9 per cent., in the United States it is 1 per cent. and in the Soviet Union it is 2 per cent. That is bad enough, but what makes the matter worse is that, because our armed forces are all regular and, therefore, expensive to maintain, the size of our armed forces as a whole as a percentage of the population is far lower than that of most comparable countries.
For ourselves, 0·59 per cent. of the population is in the armed forces as a whole. In NATO the figure is 1·35 per cent., in the Warsaw pact 1·65 per cent., in the United States 0·9 per cent. and in the USSR 1·9 per cent. As the defence budget will decline in real terms and as for political reasons I see little likelihood of a change in our basic strategic commitments, we must look at manpower policies and enhance our reserves.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that he should also consider the important role of the reservist in line with the serious haemorrhage of experienced and highly trained regular Army officers who are deciding to leave the forces?

Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend is right. That is a problem not only in the Army but in the Royal Air Force, which is the service I know better. To their credit, the Government are seeking to enhance the training available to the regular reserves and to give them a week's training after three years, and this is an improvement. The problem to which my hon. Friend alludes is serious.
In Europe as a whole, as I pointed out in the debate on the Royal Air Force on 26 February, when I urged that we should get away from the taboo of discussing national service, we are the only major country without conscription. The others that do not have conscription are Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, Liechstenstein and Andorra. They are all fine countries in their way, but, with the sole exception of Luxembourg, they are neutral and they are all, significantly, small countries.
In the world as a whole, 61 per cent. of the states have national service. Perhaps the most interesting exception tends to be Commonwealth countries, perhaps because they follow the British model. In the NATO order of battle, one third of the front line troops would be conscripts. In the Warsaw pact order of battle, two thirds of the front line troops would be conscripts. Therefore, at a time of high unemployment—in 1984, 25 per cent. of young people between the ages of 18 and 24 were unemployed—we should carefully reconsider the potential merits of national service. Perhaps those who did not go on to higher education or secure a job within a reasonable time after leaving school or those who do not attend a YTS programme or some other worthwhile training scheme should do national service.The counter argument was that put forward by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), that it would be wrong for only the disadvantaged to have to do national service. He could be right. If that is the case, and if we take the arguments implicitly put by the right hon. Member for Devonport, perhaps it should be a universal scheme, if that is the way we wish to go.
In "virgin soldier" days, in the old-style post-war national service, there were many examples of occasions when conscripts saw operational service—in Korea, Kenya, Malaya and Cyprus. They were not criticised; their performance on the whole was good. Today, fortunately, the opportunity for operational service by conscripts, if national service were reintroduced, would probably be small, but there is a chance for overseas service. They can go to Belize, Gibraltar, Cyprus, the Falklands or Germany. This would be valuable experience to them in addition to the technical training that they can receive.
I have always argued that one of the principal benefits of national service is the technical training, and that is why the admirable, in other respects, scheme that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham has proposed is deficient. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, 100 days is not an adequate period in which to learn a technical skill that will assure a conscript a job in today's industry and commerce. People need longer than that. Interestingly, perhaps for demographic reasons above all, the Germans

have just increased their national service from a year to 15 months, and got it through the Bundestag without too much of a problem.
For strategic reasons, we should look at this matter again. Reserves have an important part to play in increasing the contact between the regular forces and the community and in providing training opportunities for young people. We need to be able to expand our front line more than we can at present because our reserves are inadequate. If we had national service, we could more easily fulfil our central European commitment through BAOR, and we would find it easier to have trained personnel in the reserves.
The sector that I know best is the air reserves. The Royal Air Force offers opportunities for technical training better than any other service except the Navy. I can suggest three clear flying roles for the auxiliaries. One is the light support helicopter role, which has already been identified and which the Government intend to fulfil as soon as resources are available. The second is the point defence role with the Hawk, currently fulfilled by the tactical weapon unit instructors. I suggest that it should be done with dedicated aeroplanes—the new Hawk 200 single seater aircraft, for example. Thirdly, there is inshore maritime patrol. Interestingly, I have here an advertisement from Flight International which says:
Due to possible expansion in UK offshore patrols on behalf of the Government, a well-established UK Company invites applications from ex coastal command, pilots, navigators radar operators.
Already the benefit of service-trained aircrew for carrying out of this important inshore role has been seen by the Ministry of Defence, and auxiliary squadrons should be created for the purpose.
I applaud the decision of Her Majesty's Government to allow volunteer reservists to fly as qualified flying instructors in the university air squadrons and as aircrew on VC10s and Nimrod aircraft. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to see whether volunteer reserve personnel could also serve as aircrew on the communications squadrons.
I whole-heartedly approve of this motion, admirably introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, but the issue has to be examined somewhat more broadly. The debate is timely and worthwhile.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) for giving us the useful opportunity to concentrate our attention on a way in which we might seek to match some real individual needs with some important needs of our society. The scheme that he has outlined would, of itself, be most valuable. I should like to see it as an element of a wider scheme, and I was glad that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) widened the scope of the debate to allow us to consider taking the motion in a broader sense.
The personal needs that I have just mentioned are obvious to us all. It is a tragedy of this period in our national life that there are far too many unoccupied people—both young and old. There have been economic dislocations, which are the result of the interaction of many causes. The high birth rate of the 1960s led to large numbers of school leavers coming on to the jobs market only to find that the opportunities that they wanted were


not there. There have been the impacts of technological change and recession. Sadly, they have resulted in many people finding themselves out of jobs rather earlier in their working lives than they might have expected.
The problems caused by the recession, and of getting rid of inflation and overmanning have led to too many people finding that society appears to have no need for their services. It is not good enough simply to write off those people merely as the casualties of unfortunate and inevitable change. Nor, for a moment, do I suggest that the Government have done so. They have produced a succession of imaginative and valuable schemes to enable people to retrain and to assist in the process of adaptation. However, I think we all acknowledge that the scale of the problem is very great and that the useful, worthwhile remedies that the Government have offered do not adequately match the problem. We find, therefore, that many older people in our society have idle skills and unsatisfied idealism. They would like to find a role for themselves. Many people, both young and old, are left with the blighting feeling that society does not need them. They feel isolated.
It is an irony of our democratic history that, although with good intentions, our liberal state has arrogated to itself more and more power and taken upon itself more and more responsibility in all sorts of fields. This has led to an atrophying of the sense of individual, local responsibility and the sense of community. Because people feel isolated they are looking for new ways in which to find that sense of community and that sense of involvement and belonging that is a very deep human need. Sometimes they find it in delinquent fashions: in a kind of tribalism by joining gangs; sometimes they place an undue emphasis upon racial identity; sometimes they show an enthusiastic allegiance, which can be wholly innocent and positive, to football clubs.
The point that I am trying to illustrate is that people have a need to belong. Therefore, the Government have been right, as a central part of their strategy to seek to devolve responsibility back to individuals, families, businesses and, importantly, to voluntary organisations which can be a focus of loyalty and pride, which enable people to give service to the community and which strengthen their sense of belonging to the community. These personal and social needs interact with one another.
At another level, it is obvious that there is work that many of us would wish to be done but which we are unable to organise to have done by the conventional means of increased public expenditure and bureaucratic organisation. At one end of the age spectrum, help is needed for meals on wheels for the elderly. At the other end of the age spectrum, physically handicapped children need to be given help. All of us are aware of the inadequacy of the present provision of services. The only realistic prospect of improving and extending the provision of services is by means of enhancing the role of the voluntary organisations.
I have direct experience, as I am sure all hon. Members have in their constituencies, of the help that the voluntary services can give in enhancing the performance of the statutory provision of services. I have seen young people lending a hand and giving help in some of the very excellent sheltered housing accommodation that we have in Warwickshire. They give a great deal of help to old people and they derive an enormous amount of satisfaction from doing so. There is an enormous amount of work to

be done for the environment by clearing derelict land and repairing and improving housing, thus making our inner cities better places in which to live and attracting back business and employment opportunities. The insulation of our housing stock is a project which remains to be carried out. Even though the price of oil has come down, it is no less rational or desirable to make that national commitment. However, we will not organise to do it at a national level other than, possibly, by looking to the voluntary services.
Hon. Members will be familiar with the community programmes in their constituencies. They may share my impression that people working on community programmes who suffered from a sense of rejection and isolation and from the traumatic experience of becoming unemployed or being unable to find a job have found, through their experience of the community programme, that they have been provided with an opportunity to belong, to serve and to develop real enthusiasm. The only shame is that the scheme remains as limited as it is.
I greatly welcome the expansion of the scheme, in successive phases, and the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget. Even so, the opportunities to enter such programmes are limited. Only young people who have been through a period in which they have been unable to find employment are eligible.
We have been unable to match those who want work, those who want to contribute, with the work that there is to be done, mainly because of the cost of running a full public sector scheme. There are other objections, too, to such an approach. I think that Conservative Members would have deep reservations about any attempt to organise the carrying out of these functions on a national scale. It is better that the way in which they are organised should be generated more spontaneously at local level.
Therefore, I support what I take to be the much broader implications of the proposals that are contained in the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham: a scheme of voluntary national service that would be nationwide. One could argue about the details, but it might consist of one-year units. I was attracted by the scheme to which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement referred in his speech. In the days before the burden of his particular responsibilities fell upon his shoulders he advocated that scheme. Even in his official capacity I hope that he remains personally committed to a scheme that would contain the three elements of community service, military service and industrial training. I agree with him that if these experiences and this training are to be effective, one year is probably necessary to make the best of them. Although these opportunities should be available to all, on a voluntary basis, they should be directed mainly to the unemployed.
As other hon. Members have mentioned, it is notable, on the military side, that we are untypical of European countries. I think I am correct in saying that it is only Eire, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom in Europe that do not have a scheme of compulsory military service for young men. Since about 1956 it has been regarded as rather way out and eccentric to advocate the restoration of conscription. I say "way out and eccentric", but I defer with great respect to what was said by my hon. Friend the


Member for Ruislip-Northwood, (Mr. Wilkinson). Nevertheless he will acknowledge that he is a pioneer in advocating such ideas again in this country.
Politicians have perhaps misjudged what might be the national response. I recall that 10 years ago I was with Lord Thorneycroft, when he was the chairman of the Conservative party, in Liverpool. We held a meeting with social workers in Liverpool. I must confess that I braced myself, lifted an eyebrow and was rather startled when he suggested to the assembled social workers that there might be some merit in introducing conscription. However, I was educated by that meeting because the social workers took the point extremely seriously. They were ready to talk about it and to understand what might be the virtues of conscription.
Lord Thorneycroft did not mean a scheme of military conscription exclusively. He had in mind a scheme of national service. He was prepared to argue—I hope that I do not misrepresent him—that it should be compulsory for all young people to undertake some kind of service. His idea did not fall on stony ground. That suggestion was made 10 years ago, before the enormous unemployment problem was experienced on a national scale. But at that time Liverpool was already experiencing the great sadness of large-scale unemployment. Anyone who has seen the beautiful cathedral in Liverpool, which was finally completed after many years of construction and which stands amid a sea of desolation, must realise acutely the importance of finding new ways of enlisting all the latent energies in that great city and giving people the opportunity to work there and contribute.
I believe that staff would be available to operate a scheme of national voluntary service. There are large numbers of professional social workers and people employed professionally in voluntary organisations. I would not advocate a compulsory scheme, but I think that we can encourage young people to assume that this scheme shall be the next phase of experience for them after leaving school. Schools and employers could do much to steer young people in that direction.
I believe that we would want such a scheme to be part of a wider training programme. We should recognise the inadequacies of the present national provision for training. Last night, the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, Mr. Nicholson, was reported as having uttered a scathing indictment of our limited training achievements compared with the Germans. He was not the first person to observe that fact. The Secretary of State for Employment has probably done more than anybody else to improve our national provision for training both in his time as chairman of the MSC before Mr. Nicholson took the post and currently. The Government are well seized of the problem and have been active and effective on this front.
There is still much to be done. A well-considered scheme of national voluntary service would give young people a systematic opportunity to gain not only technical skills and the experience and habit of work but a sense of obligation to the community. Those elements would ultimately be of value not only to them as human beings but to our economy.
I believe that the scheme should be in a formal relationship with the rest of the training system. We should give a young person a credit for undertaking a period of

voluntary service. What the young person learns would be seen very much as part of the continuum of education and training stretching from, say, the age of 14 to 21.
I hope that employers' organisations will willingly and enthusiastically endorse this experience as an element of the wider programme. I believe that they will discover that the graduates of this national scheme of voluntary service will be attractive and useful recruits to their businesses.
I am grateful to the House for its tolerance in allowing me to go a little wide of the motion. I should like to come now to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham. I am very attracted to his scheme. I do not feel well qualified to comment on its details, so I am happy to defer to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Members with greater experience. I regret the fact that the hon. Member for Huddersfield felt obliged to commit the Labour party to opposing the continuation of the youth training scheme in the armed services. I shall not enlarge on that point because the hon. Gentleman is not in his place.
I endorse the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood about the inadequacy of our reserve forces. I believe that a country that is not prepared to provide the means of defending itself adequately at a conventional level and to maintain adequate reserves of people trained in military skills will lack to some degree national self-respect. The scheme proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham would do much to improve our defence capacity and credibility.
We should be prepared to take the steps needed to counter an invasion. Heaven forbid that invasion should ever occur, but it must be a basic responsiblity of our society and Government to do what they can to ensure that our people are prepared to defend themselves. Presumably, a national scheme of voluntary military service would place the emphasis on local defence. The young people involved would identify with their localities and respond. I should have thought that, from the point of view of the Ministry of Defence, it would be economic and practical for localities to be defended by local people. I wonder whether that is part of the scheme envisaged by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham. We should prepare our population for the experinece of wartime. The Government have done much to strengthen civil defence, but it is still woefully inadequate.
If emphasis were placed on defence, as clearly it would be under such a scheme, I think that some of the fears of the Labour party would be seen to be inappropriate. The ethos of defence must surely be acceptable. There is no question of militarism or of preparing the nation to be militarily aggressive. That is certainly not contemplated. The emphasis is fairly and squarely on defence. We would also have the benefit of the practical skills learnt during military service training, although my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement has rightly cautioned us against having exaggerated hopes.
In considering these issues we must contemplate the melancholy question of cost. In looking not only at the military component but at the broader scheme we can distinguish between the gross costs, which would be not inconsiderable, and the net costs. The gross costs would include the cost of personal allowances paid to the volunteers for their cost of living, the cost of professional supervision and training, and the costs of administration. equipment, meals and perhaps travel. Those costs would be offset by important savings. The net costs would be considerably reduced as a result of savings on


unemployment and supplementary benefits, because participants in the scheme would be removed from the unemployment register.
I reject the option put forward by some people in considering such policies that a young person who refuses to take part in a voluntary scheme should be disqualified from receiving unemployment or supplementary benefits. If that happened, the scheme would, in effect, become compulsory. It is important for there to be no doubt about the voluntary character of the scheme. I believe also that firms would be willing to donate the services of people to train volunteers and to donate equipment. Therefore, the net costs need not be formidable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham has introduced the debate at a timely moment, following my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget in which he greately extended tax relief on charitable donations. That is extremely relevant.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has opened up the possibility for charities to have the financial strength to make a vastly greater contribution of the kind of which they are uniquely capable. At their best, charities are economic and efficient. They are motivated to meet local needs and have local knowledge and sensitivity. They sit loosely to convention and adapt to changing circumstances. They are animated by the enthusiasm of their voluntary members rather than by directives from on high, and respond to specific needs and not to abstract theories. Charities are well suited to engage and enthuse the energies of our young people.
By their very nature, charities cannot be regimented. But there is such a wide variety of charities up and down the country that between them all I am confident that if we continue to give them the fair wind the Government have given them they will play their part. To some degree we can co-ordinate the work. Charities are willing to look for a lead from Government Departments and are willing to co-ordinate themselves under various umbrellas. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the volunteer centres are well established and in many ways give a practical lead to a large number of diverse charities.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education recently established a national advisory council for youth services. That could perhaps play an important part in the task of co-ordinating a large range of activities. The cost of failing to provide these opportunities for young people will be great, not just in terms of the immediately quantifiable costs to the social security budget, but in terms of the cost of a generation of young people less disciplined and less committed to responsibility and to work in the service of the community. Those costs would accumulate.
The severest economists among my hon. Friend will say this is a waste of money that cannot be jusified; that we have to allow the free play of market forces; and that any extra public expenditure in this field will be at the expense of profitable businesses to which we should look for new jobs. There may be intellectual truth in what they say, but there is a powerful human argument for another course of the kind that I have attempted to sketch.
I support my hon. Friend's proposal. I should like to see his scheme amplified so that it becomes part of the wider scheme that would promote skills and carry out useful work. It would be beneficial not just in the provision of an improved capacity for the defence of the realm but would benefit the social services, the environment and

education. Above all, it would be valuable in promoting social cohesion, a sense of mutual responsibility and true neighbourliness.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I shall confine my remarks to dealing with the skilful exposition by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart). He has presented us with a unique opportunity for discussing the forces. I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend, but whatever he may say I take the view that our reserve forces are insufficient to meet the needs they may be required to satisfy in an emergency. The reserve forces were shown to be insufficient in exercises Lionheart and Brave Defender.
Our reserve forces are vital not only for the defence of Europe and to NATO but for our defences at home. There is inadequate provision for home defence should any form of external aggression occur, because at that point we shall require many more troops to defend our own country. That is especially true when one considers that the Soviets have special infiltration forces. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) who said that local defences should have a local character so that they are able to recognise infiltrators in times of war. The scope of the debate allows me to extend my speech to that point.
I was interested in the speech of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) who said that the forces must not only accept responsibility for training their own members but must also make a contribution, as they are doing in the Army youth training services, to general training and discipline. Civil defence ought to be confined to a separate debate. Quite wrongly, national service was turned down because, if I remember correctly, the chiefs of staff advised the then Government that they could not afford the manpower to train the recruits and at the same time fulfil their commitments to NATO and their other commitments. At that time they had many commitments all over the world. On those grounds, and I gather on no other, they said that they could not undertake that training.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said that at one time we had about 750,000 service men. Now we have only 300,000. The Army youth training scheme has been a great success, but its expense should not be entirely borne by the services Department. The right hon. Member for Devonport spoke about that. Although it is expensive, it provides training for people, and the money ought to come from sources other than the services. The skills people obtain from this scheme are enormous, and I am happy to note that the skills from this source are to be recognised. I am not sure how that is to be done, but some sort of qualification would help the participants. It would be a good idea if they had some sort of certificate or piece of paper that they could show to their future employers. It would show that they had taken part in the scheme and had been competent and reached a certain degree of efficiency.
The Minister spoke about pre-university training at Sandhurst. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said quite clearly what his party would do if it was in power: it would cut out the service element of the YTS altogether. That is part of its policy. If we find that we are short of reservists and cannot fulfil our obligations abroad and at home, and particularly in civil defence, we should consider the desirability of some form of


compulsory national service. If we do that, I suggest that we call it, not national service, but community service, and that it should have a duration of one or two years. It should include the option for the participants of either military service or some form of community service which would be of use to the nation, such as road building. It should not be confined to military service and it should not be called national service but rather community service. That would instil into our youth something that they now lack—the discipline that we obtained from the original national service.
As many of my hon. Friends have hinted, I hope that as a result of this debate we shall have some form of national or community service. We should make sure above all that our home base is safe from attack in the event of a war when almost all our forces are deployed abroad. A small proportion should remain to look after our nation. After all, the ultimate objective of an armed force is not only to atack in Europe but to protect our nation at home and to preserve our home base.

Mr. Geoff Lawler: The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) were right to broaden the debate because it is important to look at the scheme in the overall context of resources available for young people and to see what priority the idea that we are debating should have when competing against various other ideas, governmental, voluntary or those that are just being proposed.
The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said that the root of this debate was the needs of the armed forces, or words to that effect. I should say that the root of the debate is the needs of young people and what we should do for them. We should then try to relate that to the needs of the community, although the two are necessarily intertwined.
Nobody can dispute the fact that the priority at the moment is those young people particularly in need, and they are, of course, the young unemployed. Other hon. Members have described graphically the seriousness of the situation.
We must look at two particularareas—the long-term youth unemployed, and the post-YTS unemployed. We have large numbers unemployed in both categories, and yet we have many needs within the community. Let me address myself to how we can correct that mismatch and use one to alleviate some of the problems of the other.
It is right that the bulk of Government resources at this time should be concentrated on training school leavers. The two-year youth training scheme will cost 1·1 billion. I am sure that the hon. Member for Huddersfield would agree that, although he criticised the lack of spending, it is right that public money should be used to pump-prime private money. I hope that the will not say that the current lack of spending on training in British industry should be filled purely by Government money. I am sure that he will agree that British industry should pay more for training. Therefore, it is right that, when we use Government money, we should use it to stimulate private companies to spend more. That is precisely what the new two-year youth training scheme will be doing.
Young people going on the youth training scheme, having read all the advertisements, will have high expectations. They are now all expecting to be threatening Japanese industries. I have no doubt that in a few years Tracy and all the others featured in those advertisements will be building television sets and stereos and selling them to Japan rather than having them all come the other way.
I have every confidence that those high expectations will be filled by the youth training scheme. But the minority of those young persons who come off the youth training scheme—although in some pockets of high unemployment it may not be a minority—will have their hopes dashed. It is impossible for the Government to guarantee a job for every youth training scheme trainee, but we must offer them something. There must be a guarantee that they will be allowed to continue their development.
The second priority is the long-term unemployed. They are the people who have had no chance of a high-quality training scheme; people aged between 18 and 25 who left school at the height of the recession who never had the chance of a job, or people who have had a job for only a short time. They do not have any decent training and now they find themselves becoming longer and longer unemployed because employers are increasingly taking on people who have been through the youth training scheme. Therefore, that limits the vacancies available for people who have not had the benefit of that scheme.
Another problem for people in that category is that employers will look for people who have either had training or had some experience. They will therefore go for older people and that group of people will spend longer and longer unemployed and it will be harder and harder for them to get a job.
The Government have various schemes which will help, such as the community programme, the new counselling initiative and various retraining measures. It is right that such schemes should be provided and they are proving effective. But not only must we counsel for retraining, because we are always looking to fill vacancies such as the one which will soon be appearing in the west end for a director of a graphics company, but we must also look to counselling to fill other needs in the community, not necessarily within the established employment market.
To meet the needs of the post-youth training scheme unemployed and the long-term unemployed, we need greater imagination. This is where I come to the subject under discussion today. We need some form of national community service. The armed forces will have a role to play in that. We need greater imagination to mop up those young people who are not on a community programme or an existing Government or industry—structured retraining scheme in order to give them some hope for continued personal development and to stop the sheer waste of human resources in Britain.
Before we can embark on any such scheme, we need to approach the problem from the point of view of the Department of Health and Social Services. As long as young people are told that they have to be available for work we shall be extremely limited in our scope of providing community places for them. We must end the ridiculous anomaly of, for example, the 21-hour rule. It is in no way incompatible that young people should work full time on a community or armed forces scheme and at the same time be deemed available for work. The vast


majority of young people want a job and the moment that they have a chance of one they will take it. Therefore, in the meantime we must allow them, rather than hang around the streets or watch videos all day, to be able to improve their position and increase their chances of getting a job.
The elements of such a scheme must be, first, that it should not he compulsory. To introduce a compulsory scheme takes away the very benefits of having a national community scheme. We want young people who are motivated to help the community, and for them and the community to get the most out of it they must not be forced to go on the scheme. The Thompson report on the youth services said:
Coercing or compelling young people to take part would defeat the primary purpose and benefit of young people's involvement in the community.
That is right.
Secondly, young people should have the chance to shape the project in which they get involved so that they are involved from the very start. They should be allowed to take the initiative and to respond to local needs, where those are identified, or to identify them for themselves.
There should be clear aims so that young people have a target in sight which is easily achievable. There can be nothing more frustrating than taking part in a scheme where nothing appears to have been done at the end, either for oneself or for the community. Therefore, I favour initially looking at three-month projects. There should be short projects, with which young people can get involved in a community or the armed forces or wherever, with a limited aim which is achievable and which enables people to get most out of them. That would also allow people who are unemployed for longer to take up more than one such module.
Young people must be allowed to participate in the running of the schemes. They should not be used as cheap labour for job substitution. Apart from the damage that that may do to young people, it would not do a lot of good for local economies if local building work, which could be done and paid for in the proper way, was done by young people simply because the sponsoring agency wanted to get the work done on the cheap. In exploring those community provisions, we must look at what young people get out of them.

Mr. Alan Howarth: My hon. Friend spoke about construction projects being done on the cheap and disadvantaging construction firms in the private sector, with which I agree. Does he agree that there are a number of schemes which would be of great social value, whether it be the refurbishment of village halls or other types of construction projects, where there is no realistic prospect of them being done on a commercial basis, and where it would be of benefit if they were done through the community programme or similar schemes?

Mr. Lawler: I agree with my hon. Friend. The distinction must be between work that could or would be done and work that would not be done, either because finance is not available or simply because it is a scheme for betterment that would not be considered through the normal channels. The same applies to the existing community programme.
Many sectors and agencies have a part to play in community service and we must seek to use them all. There is a great variety of work to be done and I shall

broadly separate it into four categories. There is all the environmental work, whether it be village halls, improving inner city sites, or derelict areas. There is much community work to be done such as help for old people, the under-privileged and the handicapped, which is not simply confined to inner city areas but can be found in rural areas. There are many social and community needs in rural areas which could be satisfied by involvement with young people. To explore those needs and discover how they can be provided for by young people on a community service scheme, we need the co-operation of local authorities, voluntary organisations, conservation groups, charities, and social services departments.
There is a strong role for employers and education. I do not detract from the provision they make for adult and youth training, but there is undoubtedly greater scope for further training. Work experience and community provision is a good thing and provides training in a certain way but there is certainly a need for young people, particularly those who have been on the youth training scheme, to continue to develop their training. Otherwise, the training will be wasted, and we cannot allow that to happen.

Mr. Sheerman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that job experience, community service and training are important but that the item which has not been mentioned enough in the debate is the fact that there have to be jobs at the end. If we had had a proper Budget for jobs which put money into the economy to get jobs going, young people would have had a rosier future.

Mr. Lawler: I feel that schemes such as YTS, training through a community programme and the other schemes I am elaborating on help to create jobs. There is no way that the Government create jobs. Those schemes create jobs by helping British industry to be more innovative, they get rid of the shortages of skills and encourage people to use their skills and go on to form their own businesses and become self-employed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not touch too much on self-employment. It has been with some difficulty that the Chair has interpreted the terms of the motion to allow some latitude, and I think that we are stretching it when we start to talk about self-employment.

Mr. Lawler: As I am attempting to show, there are competing schemes for resources which would otherwise be devoted to our national service scheme. I promise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall not dwell at length on self-employment.
Many human resources and a great deal of technical resources are being wasted at the moment. I should like to see all our universities, colleges, schools, and industrial training centres opened in the evenings and weekends during vacations because in them there is equipment worth millions of pounds—nearly all paid for by public money—which is lying idle. Unemployed young people should be able to make use of that equipment to improve themselves.
The Army and the police are other important elements in providing opportunities within this scheme. Some young people might wish to work in the community or retrain themselves using equipment which is already


available, but many of them would benefit from participating in a scheme sponsored by the Army, the police or other emergency services.
The other sponsoring agencies which should be involved are the chambers of commerce, enterprise agencies and other self-employment schemes, many of which already exist, such as Live Wire and Instant Muscle. They do tremendous work in encouraging young people to become self-employed.
Finance is the crucial element. There is limited finance available from the Government, although they have devoted huge resources to youth training and youth matters. However, much money is being spent in this area which could be better spent. There are numerous agencies involved in providing for unemployed young people. In most cities and rural areas throughout the country one will find drop-in centres and unemployment centres which are all funded, but in a very haphazard and unco-ordinated way. We must rationalise that spending and target it so that it benefits young people more effectively.
The community programme, an excellent scheme, could be used to provide supervisors on national community service and also cover the marginal costs of the overheads of opening up a school or an ITEC centre at the weekends or in the evenings and allow them to be used by unemployed people. It could also be used to provide any extra spending which would be necessary to pay for specialist tuition. Charities, voluntary organisations and industry through, for example, existing schemes such as the Kodak conservation scheme would all provide financing and input to a national community service scheme.
I believe that young people would respond to the setting up of such a scheme because it will provide a means for those who have not been lucky enough to secure employment and those who have been on YTS and still not been able to find a job, by which they can continue with their development. Having just been taught by the youth training scheme how to climb the ladder, it will prevent them from falling off it. I hope that the Government will set up a committee to review the piecemeal and unco-ordinated provisions which apparently exist, get rid of the duplicated resource provision and introduce a co-ordinated national community scheme for unemployed young people to participate in voluntarily. It could provide scope for further training within the community and work provision, increase access to groups to existing training schemes and facilities and make more effective use of existing resources, to promote the involvement of community and environmental projects amd assist and encourage young people to become self-employed.
All that would be on an unpaid and voluntary basis. I believe that young people will come forward as long as they are allowed to retain their benefit and, by so doing, spend their time in a more constructive way than would otherwise be available to them. I hope that that will be established on a national basis without having to wait too long.
There is a great variety of training and a great deal of work to be done. We must allow each young person to find what will be of most benefit to him, because whatever is of most benefit to him will be of most benefit to the community in the long run.
I disagree with one or two points made earlier in the debate. Hon. Members said that money for an expanded national service scheme should come from the Manpower Services Commission. Recent reports have identified that 80 per cent. of people in small firms receive no training and 15 per cent. of companies are complaining that their production is being limited through skill shortages. While that is happening, the MSC must have all the resources that it now has at its disposal, to ensure that adequate training is provided for young people, and retraining is provided for adults. Although a national service scheme would have a valuable role to play, resources should not be diverted from the MSC to pay for it. There is nothing more valuable for our economy and British industry than a properly provided, resourced and staffed on-the-job training scheme such as the YTS primarily is.
In times of limited resources, we must have cost-effectiveness. There is nothing more cost-effective than a voluntary national community service scheme. Young people do not need to be drilled round a parade ground to get discipline, because they will get discipline from being involved in the community, and from contributing and achieving something. That will give them all the discipline that they need to make sure that they play their part as full citizens, as they grow into their adult years.
Therefore, we want a national community service scheme. We want means for unemployed young people to develop themselves and their potential so that they are not wasted. We want a scheme that matches up work that desperately needs to be done in the community with the human resources that are available, as well as with the technical resources. We should open up and make full use of those resources. It is a scandal that the available resources are going to waste. For probably more than half the year, equipment and resources are not used. The Government should launch a committee to look at that in a highly imaginative way and come to the House with a scheme for national community service.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) on introducing this subject, particularly as I did my national service in the 1950s, and have been a member of the Territorial Army reserve for five or six years.
There has been some interest in the Chamber this morning in the position of the Labour Front Bench. I was interested in the way in which the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) ranged widely around the topic before finally having to admit that there was no way in which his party was prepared to support any commitment on behalf of the armed services towards helping our young people. He made that clear.

Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman knows that that was not the point that I made. I said that we would not be committed to national service that included a military element in the use of the armed services. Using the armed services for providing skills training for our young people is a possibility under a Labour Government.

Mr. Thompson: I still disagree with the policy that the hon. Gentleman is propounding. He misses the whole point of the debate.
There has been much talk since the Budget about the right fiscal approach to reducing unemployment.


However, the question is how we tackle the revolution that is taking place in work and leisure, particularly as it affects young people. Therefore, it is right that this morning we should have this debate on voluntary national service youth training and the reserve forces because it focuses on the needs of people, particularly young people. That point was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler). I wholeheartedly supported his comments along those lines.
We can relate those needs to policy decisions in areas such as defence and, indeed, social services and improving our infrastruture. I have for a long time been in favour of the concept of voluntary national service. I hope very much that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will take seriously the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and other hon. Members. The Government must take the matter seriously. They must take it on board and not just say that it has been an interesting debate, and now they can move on to something else. Serious issues are at stake.
For example, the concept of voluntary national service could be applied to a whole range of activities—the armed services that we are debating this morning, the police, the fire service, nursing, social services and so on. However, rightly, in the debate we are concentrating mainly on the opportunity in the armed services for young people and volunteers. I supported the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), when he emphasised that all three services should be involved. On that point, I may disagree slightly with my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham.
I was also astonished by the remarks of the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, when he tried to say that a voluntary scheme was compulsory. I hope that it is clear from the debate that all of us have been talking about a voluntary scheme, with perhaps one or two exceptions, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who advocates a return to conscription. However, the motion is clearly about a voluntary scheme.
I shall not comment on the details of any scheme because they were set out clearly in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham. However, I reinforce the support for the youth training scheme in the armed services. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will do more, with his colleagues, to promote the scheme and make it more successful.
I also wish to speak out strongly in favour of the concept of national and community service, an ideal that has been referred to in many speeches. It has been debated ever since the abolition of national service in the years between 1957 and 1960. Indeed it was John Grigg who said that the greatest mistake made by the then Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, now the Earl of Stockton, was just that. Many other commentators also said that. However, we cannot put the clock back.
Today, there are strains in society because of rapid change. There are changes in the structure of society, the nature of employment and, particularly, in the role of education and training. Therefore, there is a need for policies, action and ideas to promote community spirit and a sense of identity and purpose, particularly among our young people. As has been stated, some of those young people are in danger of alienation from society. I should like to emphasise that.
In my experience, in commerce, industry and education, that spirit is all too often lacking. I have spoken in education debates, and I do not wish to raise that subject today, but there is no doubt that the morale and spirit in education is not all that it should be. That is also true, of course, in industry and commerce. The situation is not helped by the increasing politicisation of our universities and schools. Again, I could speak about that at some length.
The needs of 17-year-olds are not always fully met by our schools, universities and colleges. Although I fully support the youth training scheme, young people's needs are not fully met by that either. If they were, we would not be seeing increasing drug abuse and increasing crime among the young, along with many of our other inner city problems. Politicians, educators and the churches have failed to cure that sickness in our society despite all their pamphlets. Those of us who did our national service know that the experience was not necessarily valued by all, and sometimes hampered an individual's development. But for the overwhelming majority, national service represented a unique and valuable opportunity to widen one's experience and develop one's character. I believe that there is a lesson to be learnt from that.
Many of us who did our national service were imbued with a sense that we owed a duty to the community that stood over and above our duty to develop our talents to the full. In what is generally regarded as a selfish and materialistic society there is an urgent need to swing the pendulum towards self-discipline, courtesy and loyalty. What have the armed services got to offer? I believe that their traditions and ethos admirably suit them for any task that involves helping young people with their training and development.
Perhaps the defence establishment could be persuaded to agree that it has a role to perform that goes further than the mere provision of sophisticated equipment or of skilled regular personnel for our country's defence. The services can share with some of our young people the tradition of service, comradeship and leadership that so impressed my generation of national servicemen. Officers know their men well and that, together with the way in which they treat them, provides an example that could be applied throughout society. A recent pamphlet about the Falklands war discussed the distinction to be drawn between the Argentinian officers and ours. It was clearly pointed out that our traditions of leadership were largely responsible for our superiority in that conflict. That is why I support the extension of our reserve forces and the idea of voluntary youth training with an armed services input.
I also support those of my colleagues who have spoken about civil defence. It is vital that the Government should take that subject more seriously. I see a link between what we have said about the reserve forces and youth training, and civil defence. I do not just see civil defence as preparing for a possible conflict. I regularly speak for the concept of emergency volunteers who could intervene in any other civil emergency. But the Government have not taken up such ideas anywhere near as enthusiastically as they should have done. This country could gain tremendously from pursuing that course.
The arguments for compulsory conscription are probably overwhelmed by the realities of the situation, and so that is probably not on. But there would be a spin-off from more contact between the armed services and our young people. As has been said, there must be more


understanding between civilian society and our armed services. I believe that the risk of isolation is increasing. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham said that as the tolerance of violence in society increased, so the tolerance of the concept of the necessity for the use of force by society decreased. I shall not start a philosophical debate on that, but there should be a better understanding of our armed services and their role. The Ministry of Defence must bear that in mind. It is not good enough for it to say that it has a marvellous force that can do everything, while forgetting about the rest of society and its attitude to the services. I cannot stress that point strongly enough.
Let us therefore use, in any practical and realistic way, the fine traditions of our regular forces. Let us use and exploit the desire for adventure and service among our young people. I do not accept the depressing view of others that volunteers will not come forward or that the youth training scheme has not worked well. If the package is sold properly, plenty of volunteers will come forward for the scheme of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, or for any other scheme. It is chicken-hearted just to say that such a scheme is not on. The problems of our country are far too serious to be dismissed like that. Let us tackle those matters by considering the needs of the people and the country first, especially the needs of our young people.

Mr. Jim Spicer: I join hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) on bringing this subject before the House. I am delighted to see that he is properly dressed and is wearing his Parachute Regiment tie. That leads us to believe that he would "target the area" properly. That is exactly what he has done, and I intend to follow his line and concentrate on the points that he made.
Before I do so, may I comment on the contribution of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). He ducked and weaved actively and broadened the scope of the debate by talking about the role of this and that, and who could help where, but he did not accept that, at some time, everyone should acknowledge a need to serve the nation, not just to serve oneself. That concept is not foreign, even in Socialist countries. Austria, Sweden and many Socialist countries accept national service and see nothing dishonourable in serving one's country. It is a sad reflection on the present Labour party that that central theme was missing from the hon. Gentleman's speech, and it Was reinforced by his clear commitment to remove the youth training scheme already in place. It has imperfections and it could be improved, but it has given excellent training to thousands.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement mentioned the increase in our reserve forces and gave us an impressive array of figures to show, just how they had been expanded. But, against the background of Brave Defender, will the expansion of the reserve forces bridge not the gap, but the gulf that exists between resources and requirements? If it can be shown that that is not happening, when will the Government take further action to bridge that gulf? Will they bring their proposals before the house at the earliest possible opportunity?
Nothing changes much in life. The British people have always believed that national service was good for the vast majority of young people who took part in it, and that view is still supported by public opinion today. The hon. Member for Huddersfield said that 80 per cent. of people asked in a survey agreed that some form of national service was very acceptable.
However, there is the widely held opposite view—the alleged view of those in the services—that national service is bad for the armed forces. I speak with 13 years' experience of the Army. When we had national service, the vast majority of men in my battalion were doing their national service. They formed the backbone of the battalion and went into the specialist skills areas. Without them, we would not have operated as effectively as we did in Suez, Cyprus, and other parts of the world. Those who decry the role of national service are making a grave mistake and are misleading people.
The pundits will say that four months' training is not enough. Indeed, that point was echoed by my hon. Friend the Minister. But there is a misunderstanding of what we should try to achieve in those four months. We shall not try to impart skills—to turn people into lathe operators or motor mechanics. It would be a basic operation. I joined the Army when I was 16, and I remember only too well my first four months there. The first six weeks were spent in general training corps. Everyone spent six weeks in that corps and then spent 10 weeks "up the hill" receiving specialist corps training. I do not say that at the end of the four months we possessed all weapon skills, but at least we were totally different from the reserves who had joined up four months before. We had a basic sense of identity and a belief in ourselves. We had learnt about others and, in my view, we were much better members of society than when we had started out on the road into the Army. I believe that that is the road down which my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham would like us to start today.
Army training was an excellent base, but it did not provide civilian skills, and that is not the proposal that is before us. I am worried about the youth training scheme, which has been described in many quarters as a failure as a result of the armed services not wishing to play their full part in it. However, that is not true of some arms and services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham would expect me to do, I shall take the Parachute Regiment as my example. In 1984, the regiment took in 80 youngsters through the YTS and 75 per cent. of them completed their year's training, with 27 of them staying on in the Regular Army. Of the others—I was present when they passed out—they went out better than when they went in. Most of them went out into good jobs because employers were looking for the qualities that had been brought out in them during their year's training.
My worry about the YTS is that in 1985 the number of young people coming forward for training in the Parachute Regiment had fallen to 35. There is something amiss and I hope that the MOD will conduct an investigation to ascertain why there was such a dramatic falling off between 1984 and 1985 at a time when youth unemployment was supposedly on the rise.
The problem of pay still exists. There is a vast differential between those who are in regular service and those who are on the short-term YTS. However, the benefits that flow from the scheme are immeasurable. First, there is the art of living. I return to what I said about the four months of training that was received by those who


did national service and the training that was received during war time. Those who received that training learnt to live and work together and to grow up, and they are all better for it.
The second benefit is discipline. I know that "discipline" is often regarded as a dirty word but there is a lack of it among some of our young people. I take up the remarks of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport, (Dr. Owen), who said that discipline would be a tremendous help to some of our more deprived young people. The right hon. Gentleman argued that they would benefit immensely from it, and he is right.
The third benefit is education. When I went to Aldershot to watch the passing out of those who had received training in the Parachute Regiment as YTS volunteers, the two people who impressed me most of all were those who worked in the education service. They told me that they thought that they had the most rewarding job in the services. On day one they took on board 80 youngsters with only four or five CSEs between them, and at the end of the year they were turning them out with three of four O-levels each. Education is an area that we have not considered closely enough and there are many benefits that could flow from that. Within four months I would expect to see basic education and motivation built in as a major part in a young person's training. If youngsters came out of the services after four months with the right sort of report, that, in itself would be a recommendation to many employers, who would recognise that there was a base on which to build some further skills.
Fourthly, there is no doubt that our Territorial Army, good though it is, does not have enough people within it with a service background. Four months' training in the services would provide a valuable reserve, and I would hope that many who received it would go on to see service in the reserve forces.
Time presses. I sum up with an old adage—the difficult we do at once, the impossible may take a little longer. I believe that these proposals are difficult. It seems that Government Front Bench spokesmen believe them to be impossible. I hope that they will reconsider and see whether it is not possible to achieve the impossible.

Sir Philip Goodhart: With the leave of the House, I thank hon. Members who have made the debate so interesting, and I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note with approval of the Government's plans to expand the United Kingdom's volunteer reserve forces; and emphasises the great value to young people of basic service training, while recognising that such training should not be funded in a way which would diminish the United Kingdom's front line capability.

High Technology (European Co-operation)

Mr. Timothy Wood: I beg to move,
That this House strongly supports the policies pursued by Her Majesty's Government in European collaboration in research and development in high technology industries, including through Esprit and Eureka; and in addition wishes to see these industries further develop joint manufacturing and marketing projects..
I wish to draw attention to some matters that I find encouraging and others that give me cause for concern. I hope that the encouraging items show the way in which some of the problems can be tackled. In the development of new ideas and in the making of new scientific discoveries, Britain's record in this century is one which any other country would find difficult to match. However, it has been repeatedly stated that in translating that scientific invention into profitable and practical use we have lagged behind.
When Great Britain was in the happy position of being able to sell its manufactured goods to an empire, the impact of international competition was weakened and we could rely upon a market of immense size. That no longer applies.
Although the costs of manufacturing goods may be falling with increased automation and mechanisation, the costs of developing new aircraft, new computer syterns and even new motor cars steadily increase. To fund the investment needed and to obtain a profitable return requires large sales and a large market.
In general, European companies and countries have not been particularly successful in looking beyond their national boundaries. The pursuit of jointly funded projects has been the exception rather than the rule. There has been no particular wish to buy European. The British are slightly inclined to buy British, but the French are more positively inclined to buy French. If no attractive home product is available the average European purchaser is at least as ready to buy Japanese or American as to buy from another European manufacturer. Perhaps that is sensible, but the consequence of a fragmented Europen market is to reduce the sales volumes of individual European manufacturers and thus to deny those manufacturers the funds for the further investment that they need.
About 20 years ago I naively assumed that the EEC would lead to a truly common market, that within a relatively short period the barriers to trade which then existed would be substantially removed. Although some progress has been made it has been disappointingly slow. Even some of the important initiatives that have been taken. are all too easily clogged up with bureaucratic decision-making. In high technology projects a delay of even a few months can turn a profitable project into a financial disaster.
In two areas European co-operation has been encouraging and the benefits have still to be fully realised. One is in the development of information technology and the other is in the design, development and manufacture of major aerospace projects. In information technology the EEC's funding of the Esprit and Eureka projects are proving to be an important stimulus to development effort . Esprit is, of course, related specifically to information technology projects. On a European basis it is an extension of the aims and objectives of the well-established Alvey programme.
The European Commission identified five priority areas of information technology that justify Community effort. They are advanced micro-electronic capability, software technology, advanced information processing, office systems, and computer-integrated manufacture. The Commission also proposed bringing the 12 major European information technology companies, including International Computers Ltd, GEC and Plessey from the United Kingdom, together with universities and other research centres. It has certainly been good to see those companies from different European countries co-operating more steadily together, as well as competing, where appropriate.
The Alvey project has proved to be an important stimulus in bringing together those companies and academic institutions in major research projects in Britain. There are encouraging signs that Esprit is acting as a catalyst for greater co-operation and dialogue between the European high technology companies. Although the Esprit programme is an important catalyst for joint European competitive collaboration between companies, it is naive to suppose that that in itself will enable European companies to compete effectively in the long term.
There is a need to progress further in collaboration on product development, manufacture and marketing. Inevitably, there must be major reservations about how programmes, such as Alvey and Esprit, can respond swiftly and flexibly to encompass the rapid changes that may be perceived in the development of new projects.
When I worked for ICL, on one or two occasions I was involved in putting forward development projects to the Department of Trade and Industry for support. The Government officials examining the project were extremely helpful and constructive in their approach. Nevertheless, by the time that the proposal was sufficiently well formulated to merit support, a substantial amount of work had already been carried out. Furthermore, the nature of such projects is that significant changes may need to be made to them and considerable time may have to be spent on justifying them to those responsible for financial support.
Overall, although one is providing that catalytic help to companies, they often have to spend considerable resources and time, presenting the case for a particular project and considering the case and the possibility whether the Government will believe that the proposed changes can be justified financially. Those factors often act as a slight hindrance, although the end result may be financial support.
The House of Lords Select Committee on European Communities considered Esprit in its eighth report last Session. I agree with its main conclusions, and although I have already touched on most of them, they are worth re-emphasising. Pre-competitive collaboration should be a precursor to collaboration on product development and manufacture. There need to be many more effective moves to create a true common market with the reduction of differing standards, and of border delays and restraints on trade and services. There is also a great need to ensure that a sufficient number of people are properly qualified to exploit the new technologies.
I have often spoken of my concern about the amount of higher education and training that we provide, and I certainly do not wish to expand unduly on that aspect now.

I wish to concentrate on how we can further expand upon co-operation between countries and companies, rather than on the more basic requirements of education and training.
Eureka was clearly stimulated by a wish on the part of the British Government to have a European high technology counterpart to the United States' strategic defence initiative. There is no doubt that many high technology companies believe that the United States space programme gave a major uplift to the development of a multitude of new projects, which will have a much wider application than the space programme. It is arguable as to whether research directed to more terrestrial activities would produce the same beneficial effects. However, it is clear that many companies involved in innovative projects believe that the setting of clear national or supernational goals for exciting projects can act as a major fillip to progress.
At the moment, the Eureka initiative is leading to attempts to resolve some of the problems identified as a result of the experience of work on Esprit. There is a major need to open up the European markets in sectors such as standards and public purchasing, and I welcome the efforts made by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry to make progress in this regard. However, I wonder whether it might have been possible to indentify exciting projects in medicine or communications, for example, where a major European drive could have been attempted and where one might have tried to excite popular imagination on specific projects that might be pursued. There is an opportunity to do such things, and if it is taken up, we might find in this country, as in the United States, that the necessary stimulus has been created.
The European collaboration in aerospece activities has advanced much further than in other sectors. Im my Stevenage constituency, over 8,500 people are employed by British Aerospace. I am delighted that such successful progress is being made in so many collaborative projects. Undoubtedly, the more concerted approach to European purchasing of defence equipment is having a beneficial effect, but that is not the whole story. Aerospace manufacturers have learned that while competing on some projects they can successfully collaborate on others, and that it is not necessary to have a large monolithic organisation to produce major new systems.
Airbus Industrie is a strikingly important example of a European response to the impact of large American aircraft manufacturers in general, and Boeing in particular. With the A300 and A310 having proved themselves in service with many airlines, the orders for the A320, standing at over 100, are well ahead of what many supporters of the project, like myself, dared to hope would be reached at this stage. The clear intent of Airbus Industrie to go ahead with the A330 and the A340 aircraft highlights the prospect of a European range of aircraft that meets the needs of many of the world's airlines. The British Aerospace involvement in the design and production of the wings of this aircraft is a most significant aspect of British involvement. However, there are a multitude of other contractors and sub-contractors making their contribution as well.
I have noticed that there has been a certain amount of speculation about the funding of British Aerospace's involvement in the A330 and the A340 development. The Government support for the A320 programme was clearly of vital importance. However, I believe that at present,


apart from possible recycling or rescheduling of that finance, it should not be necessary for there to be further British Government support. British Aerospace has demonstrated to financial institutions that it is becoming a steadily more successful and popular company. That positive picture will, I hope, be reflected in a desire by investors to support this and other investment opportunities that British Aerospace presents.
Turning away from Airbus Industrie, one looks at some of the other aerospace projects which are also most significant. The Tornado aircraft and the European fighter project are other examples of European collaboration. But collaboration is not related solely to aircraft. The development and production of missiles for such systems as ASRAAM and Milan are extremely significant from the point of view of my constituency. There is also a range of collaborative ventures in space and communications development. A whole series of satellite and related systems are being developed in collaborative projects for use both on the Ariane launches and on the United States space shuttles. After last week's encounter with Halley's comet, it is perhaps worth singling out the success of the Giotto project. But most projects are, of course, associated with potentially profitable and useful satellite communications activities.
I could spend a great deal of time eulogising about the multitude of important projects that are being pursued by British Aerospace, many of them in my constituency, but I want to consider further whether there are lessons to be learned from European co-operation in aerospace which should be pursued in other areas of endeavour, in particular in information technology. I believe that a great deal can be achieved but that even now our opportunities are becoming more limited unless Governments and companies move much more rapidly than they have done.
Twenty-five years ago, in computer development, one had in this country several manufacturers producing mainframe computers. They included ICT, Ferranti, Elliott Automation, English Electric and EMI. By a series of mergers of computer interests, those manufacturers were reduced to one—ICL. At the same time, the physically large and slow machines of those days have either become enormously more powerful or have been superseded by desktop machines which are also more powerful, faster and easier to use.
For the small business and home computer market, a whole series of new companies has sprung up and, in many instances, faded away once more. Companies like Acorn, despite the success of its BBC microcomputer, and Sinclair, despite its innovative approach, have found the going much tougher than at one stage they anticipated. Even the United States company, Commodore, at one stage the producer of the most popular home computers, has suffered severely.
While much attention has been devoted to the varying fortunes of the microcomputer manufacturers, the manufacturers of large computer systems have had their own challenges to face. For the past 30 years the world computer industry has been dominated by IBM at least as significantly as Boeing has dominated the aircraft industry.
The huge world market which has been achieved by IBM has meant that that company has been able to devote enormous resources to further research and development. Nevertheless, it has proved possible for other companies—sometimes quite small companies—to develop items

varying from processor chips to highly effective printers to floppy disk systems. It is not the case that only if one is very big is the world beautiful.
However, the development of complex systems and software requires considerable resources, and the effective marketing of these systems, together with proper support, after those systems have been sold and installed requires great resources too. ICL, Bull of France and Siemens of Germany, have set up a research centre of technological excellence in Munich. I hope that it will prove to be the small beginning of major efforts to produce larger computer systems and computer networks on a European rather than a national basis.
Large computer systems seem to me to lend themselves at least as easily as aircraft to the development and production of varying parts by different companies in different countries. In a typical computer system one would have not merely the computer processor; one would have various memory systems for direct access memory, or disk drives, or magnetic tape drives. One would also have varying types of printers, display equipment and so on. A considerable variety of components could be developed by different companies if they collaborated more.
A company may first consider whether it is sensible for it to produce a certain item. If it is not, the company looks at the world scene and perhaps picks up one component from Japan, another from the United States, and so on. That may be sensible in the short term but, by acting in that way, the company is eroding its potential markets.
In the end, the potential market is one of the cnicial aspects of success in high technology. A company that does not co-operate with other manufacturers will not create a large market. Many high technology industries will fail if they do not create such a market. The lesson to be learned from aerospace is that the various European aerospace companies have got together, resulting in them being able to market jointly their various products and thus win greater confidence from potential purchasers of their products. In turn, this means that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, they will have more resources for research and development.
How do we best advance this cause? I am not one of those who believe that companies and industries should be led by Governments. It is up to companies to ascertain the ways in which various projects can be pursued together. However, Governments have a role—first, in providing the catalyst in terms of, for example, the Alvey programme, Esprit and, potentially Eureka and, secondly, in creating an environment in which Government purchasing in different countries is co-ordinated. Coordination would mean that the French would not look for a French manufacturer and then look at the world scene, that the Germans would not look for a German manufacturer and then at the world scene, and so on.
It has been said that ICL's market has been excessively protected in terms of sales to the Government. In some respects, that is true, but it has not been protected in terms of the European market. I do not want protection. I should like co-ordination in the way in which we organise our affairs in Europe so that we can create the base to enable our companies to succeed.
Similar considerations apply to aerospace and information technology. They may apply in the longer term to the nuclear power industry, motor manufacturing, and so on. Where there is a need to spend large sums on


research and development and on support for the consumer after he has acquired equipment, it is a function of Governments in support of industry, to ensure that the potential is fulfilled.
I hope the House will see that the points I have made are valid and that there is a strong case for reinforcing cooperation on high technology initiatives, and for reinforcing the work in aerospace and in information technology. If we do that, we can become within Europe a highly successful and continuing base for the manufacture of high technology goods. I hope that we will not be reduced to a tourist centre and a place where people come to see what was once the base of an empire but is no longer.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) on initiating this debate. He may have caused more embarrassment to his Government than was the intention when his motion was originally tabled, because it comes hard on the heels of obvious anti-European initiatives against industries that are of key importance to high technology. It comes at a time when we are selling out our helicopter industry to Sikorsky. In that case we barely looked at, and then turned down, a European alternative. It also comes when the Government have embarked on a hell-bent course to sell off Land Rover.
I mildly rebuke the hon. Member for Stevenage for saying that even motor cars cost a lot to develop these days. They always did, but they cost more than ever now because they are at the forefront of the advanced technologies about which he was speaking from his own experience in software and computers and their application in the main areas of the Esprit programme. Motor cars, including Land Rovers, are at the forefront of those applications and to a large extent the health and strength of our advanced technology industries depend on the health, strength and size of our motor car industry. That is why the Opposition were against the Government's proposals to sell off with meaningless undertakings first our helicopter industry to Sikorsky and now, irrespective of the merits of the case, our own vital motor car and truck industry to General Motors.
With considerable help from Tory Back Benchers, we managed for a while to fight back the Government's intention to sell Austin Rover, and all the success it has achieved, to Ford. Far from promoting national and pan-European solutions to our problems, the Government have given up on British management and technology and have turned their back on co-operation with Europe. They are intent on cutting their own expenditure by selling out to the Americans.

Mr. Wood: One of the crucial points I endeavoured to make in my speech was the importance of a large market. If one finds that, for various reasons, a market has diminished, there is no point in wishful thinking about the maintenance of a specific manufacturer. One has to build confidence in a market for the goods being produced, and that must be done by combined development projects and by good after-sales service. Once one has got that market one is in a good position, but there is no point in crying once the market has been lost.

Mr. Robinson: I do not see the relevance of that intervention to the point I was making. I agree there is no point in crying over a lost market. One has to do something about it. One must get back that market share and that is what every other country and every other industry is doing. It is a diversion from the main topic of today's debate, but it is interesting to note something I have not heard said on either side of the House, that Renault, the enormous state-owned French car and truck producer, has made losses in the last few years of £1 billion a year. We hear no debates about the French Government flogging off Renault in part or in whole. As a whole, it is making those losses irrespective of any changes in the management of the company.
We can blame the French Governnent of Mr. Mitterrand for many things, but we cannot blame him for the running of Renault because he has no direct responsibility for it. It was nationalised by none other than General de Gaulle, as hon. Members on the Government side will know. It has remained nationalised and has been run by a succession of distinguished French industrialists. Whatever we may think of President Mitterrand, he has no responsibility for the performance of Renault. The French see the strategic importance of that as they do of Esprit and the other programmes that we must consider today.
I noticed one surprising point in the speech of the hon. Member for Stevenage. I do not know how it will be received by his constituents. He said, if I understood him correctly—I am sure he will take every opportunity to correct me if I am wrong—that he did not think that British Aerospace needed Government support for its share in the development of the wing structure for the new Airbus. He is being quite quixotic in making that remark.
In my experience, dating back to the early 1960s, I know of no aerospace project of that magnitude that has not involved Government funding in some form or another. One can go back to Rolls-Royce and its unfortunate collapse and the humiliation of receivership that it experienced which the Conservative Government then—they may regret it now—forced the company to go through; to the invention of launch aid, a brilliantly innovative concept from the Department of Trade and Industry; and to all the programmes, civilian and defence. They have always needed Government aid, and we must say again, as we did at the last trade and industry Question Time, that it is not enough for the Secretary of State to list a formidable series of barriers and obstacles for the company to overcome and to refuse to give me an explicit undertaking that aid, even in principle, was not ruled out. We are asking for no more than that.
Anyone can sit back and say that the company must be profitable and that the money must come from somewhere else. In all, he rattled off about five obstacles to any Government funding. The harsh reality is that at the end of the day, the Government will have to back the project, and the earlier that that is made plain, and the earlier that the Government come in and support British Aerospace, the better will be the deal that we shall get out of that aspect of European co-operation on the new technologies.

Mr. Wood: British Aerospace has not as yet made an application for aid. My understanding is that it is still considering what its requirements, if any, might be. The point that I was trying to emphasise was that, in view of


the major successes that British Aerospace has been having, I see good prospects of further funding being available from the private sector.

Mr. Robinson: Nobody is putting that in doubt. That is not the issue. I am sure that the directors and management of British Aerospace will vigorously pursue every avenue of private finance. The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. What he ought to be doing, if he were doing his job as a constituency Member of Parliament, is joining Labour Members in pointing out to the Government the obvious fact that they will have to support the project. We shall see. If it does not come in that project it will come in some other, but I guarantee there will be government funding, directly or indirectly, behind that project. The Minister shakes his head. I hope that in the coming months I shall reflect with wry amusement on the fact that on this particular issue he has not been correct. Money will be needed. It will be found, directly or indirectly, and I hope that that European area of collaboration will proceed.
We are discussing today the question of European cooperation in advanced technologies against a background of continuing decline. That has accelerated considerably under the Government, but it has been there since the war. Historians and economists trace it back to the 19th century. I am never clear what good it does for us to carry out that form of industrial analysis, which relates our problems to a cultural difficulty, other than that it focuses Government policies on what we should be doing now, which those who look that far back may often fail to do. If I could do that today it would be by merely establishing yet again how great the need is.
There was a debate in the other place in which it was pointed out, and it is worth pointing out again today, just how far Europe and the United Kingdom are behind. If we look at the production of main frame computers, integrated circuitry, and video recorders the figures are alarming. The market for large industrial computers is dominated by the United States with Japan catching up. But eight out of 10 personal computers sold in Europe are made in the United States. Nine of of 10 video recorders sold here are made in Japan. European manufacturers of integrated circuits control only 30 per cent. of our market—that is the Community market—and 13 per cent. of world sales.
It is a long time since Babbage first developed the concept of the computer way back in the 1920s. During the war, with our national effort focused in the dire straits of apparently overwhelming odds, we assembled a team of scientists at Bletchley park, built the British colossus and cracked the German Enigma code. In the post-war period we have seen a progressive decline of our ability to develop and apply some of the billiant fundamental research which has been carried out. That is a commonplace point and one we should never lose sight of.
With equal emphasis, I must also point out that the solution to the problem of our failure sufficiently to develop and apply technology and research is not to cut the research itself. I see no merit in cutting research because, by their very nature and character,-the people who do the fundamental research will not be those who will be out in the hurly-burly of the market place, under the pressure from sales and production, giving us the products needed from the basic research.
The movement for saving British science is not an aberration. It is not a group of academics anxious to preserve their own funding, but a reaction to the cuts in all areas of Government finance for basic research. Cuts will not solve the Minister' s or our country's problems in the application of that research. To give up on what we are doing well will not solve the problem of what we are doing badly. We must think how far behind we are. It was put very aptly in a debate in the other place when it was stated that
We are paddling in the shallows to reach the development boat, and that boat has yet to be pushed out."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 November 1985; Vol. 468. c. 755.]
That is how far we are still behind.
No doubt we shall hear from the Minister a whole series of individual statistics relating to the Brite programme. One does not hear very much about that but it is one of the successful European programmes. No doubt we shall hear about Esprit and the number of successes we have scored there, and about Eureka. Having poured cold water on Eureka and having told the French Government that it was unnecessary and that the private sector would do all that was necessary, the Government, perhaps in anticipation of today's debate, on 13 March gave their blessing to Eureka. However, it did not stop us from doing badly in the first share of the Eureka programme and we have to admit, that to a large extent that was because of the Government's lukewarm, half-hearted support for it.
I accept that the Minister will have to pad out his speech with all sorts of statistics relating to Brite, Esprit and Eureka. I believe that Eureka is the most recent of the European based collaborative programmes. No doubt the Minister will inform us what each of the acronyms refers to. However, I ask the Minister not to lose himself in a wealth of detail relating to each of the programmes, to the proportion of the grant, to carefully chosen statistics arid to other information we shall no doubt hear, but to address himself to two central points. The second point is a great deal more important than the first.
Is there nothing that the Government can do to overcome the two criticisms which are levelled at the present programmes, even by those who are most in favour of them and in some cases by those who are deriving most benefit from them? The criticisms deal with the length of time it takes to get through the bureaucracy.
Inevitable obstacles exist m Brussels. I am sure that they are not created deliberately or because Brussels happens to be the centre of the official administration of the Common Market. They probably exist because, as with our own Civil Service, the problems of discrimination and the problems caused by being fair and undertaking a thorough evaluation, means that the evaluation periods are very wrong.
Does the Minister accept that the difficulties for small companies and universities are a great deal more formidable than those for large companies? A large company can afford a professional lobbyist; it can hire someone to live in Brussels, and he can stay there until he brings home the bacon. That is not the case for the universities since the Government hacked to pieces our research effort and support for the universities, nor is it the case for small companies.
Our heavy research and development effort, which is geared to the defence industry, is dominated by a few large companies. Indeed, it is difficult to get the spin off to the small companies. The pattern that is emerging from the


European co-operative programme is similar, in that the beneficiaries are the very same large British companies with the resources to get in and overcome the bureaucracy involved.
I ask the Minister to look at that. Perhaps he will consider the possibility of Government help, by way of advice, introductions and even an increase in our office in Brussels, by which the small companies could be guided through the maze leading to the award of a grant under one of the European collaborative projects.

Mr. Wood: From my knowledge of British Aerospace and my experience in ICL, I know that there are a multitude of cases where small companies are taking part in projects, although the large companies may have initiated the development programme. Therefore, it is not true to say that small companies are being excluded in the way that the hon. Gentleman implies.

Mr. Robinson: I think that, under the Whips' orders, the hon. Gentleman must by trying to spin out the debate. I did not say that small companies were being excluded, but those involved in defence in this country do not have anything like the participation in the European programmes that I am sure he, the Minister, the Government and officials would like. There are problems for them. I am highlighting them and wondering whether the Government, in their wisdom and generosity, could extend a helping hand to the small companies in Britain. I assure the hon. Member for Stevenage, from my personal contact with such companies and knowledge of the matter, that those companies face formidable difficulties—perhaps they are as much in their own minds as in reality—in getting through the necessary process of evaluation.
Speaking in another place, the former vice-chancellor of the university located in the city that I have the honour to represent said in regard to the Alvey and Esprit programmes in Europe—I quote from col. 752—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman must paraphrase. I am sure that he can do that.

Mr. Robinson: I meant to say that I would not quote. I apologise.
The former vice-chancellor referred to the need for an expansion of our national programme. He said that our national situation is critical and that we do not attract enough people into engineering. He said that we are not established as far as we should be in Europe, that we should prevent the present national hæmorrhage of skills and first-class talent, and that we need a national effort such as the French have, which is wholly nationalistic in research and development. He called for a major Government initiative.
I suggest something to the Minister that is much less ambitious and more modest. Has he read what was written in the latest edition of the British Plastics Federation's communication, referring to the briefing of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Department? It stated that the DTI outlined proposed changes in the manner of funding R and D, which will lead to an increase in funds for the EEC R and D budget and to a reduction in funds for national R and D programmes. Is that the case?
Does the Treasury really regard everything that our companies successfully obtain from the various European funds—to which, of course, it has to contribute—as involving a necessary reduction from the Department of Trade and Industry's support for the innovation programme? If so, it follows that, on any analysis, Europe, let alone Britain—which is probably the worst off of the advanced nations in Europe—is in a dire crisis in relation to Japan and the United States. That is recognised by every other Government involved, even if it is not recognised by our Government.
The very magnitude of the requirements in Europe means that there will be no United Kingdom funding if the Treasury line is pursued. The Minister shakes his head, but not long ago a Minister in his Department told us that all Government spending was bad. The only logical conclusion to that is that all Government spending should be ended. For many a year we have not had a particularly positive approach to spending in support of industry. I know that much to their credit, officials are resisting the line put forward by the Treasury. They do not want a reduction in the support for the innovation programme. Can the Minister give us an assurance that there will not be that reduction?
One of our major companies, GEC, is very good at getting both national and international grants. It has a proposition under the Eureka project. However, one of the reasons we are doing so badly is that it has been held up on the ground that the Treasury argues that the funding is additional,—a new concept of additionality—and so it cannot put the money into that project since money is already committed under Support for Innovation. Alternatively, money no longer needs to be committed under SFI, because the Government are contributing to the Eureka project. That has been agreed by the companies and has been agreed, in principal, by the Governments. The French Government have put up their 50 per cent. They have put their money where their mouth is, but our Government are dragging their feet. I hope that the Minister will give me a straight answer on that point today.
The scale of resources being committed under the support for innovation programme and under other related programmes is tiny compared with France or Germany, not to mention the two giants whom we are trying to catch up—America and Japan. A distinguished former civil servant has put forward figures for the micro-electronic component industry and they speak for themselves. The French have increased their spending by 500 per cent. during the past four years. The Germans have more than doubled theirs, but we have barely increased ours.
The Government's policy is shameful because it is short-sighted. It is harmful because the Department of Trade and Industry is being humiliated by the Treasury. It is negligent because it ignores the needs of British industries and research institutions. Labour will still work to save British science. It will work to restore the research and development budgets of our universities and research institutes. We will back British enterprise, British technology and British management, in whom we have not lost faith. We will back those institutions in their efforts to co-operate with Europe and to obtain their fair share from Europe. That is the only way forward. While the Government are looking and walking backwards, Labour will have the courage, intelligence and self- interest to back Britain and British brains.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Howard): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) for raising this important subject and I congratulate him on the cogency of his observations. He drew attention to major developments in European co-operation in high technology. There can be no dispute that the success of those industries is critical to the future economic prosperity of the United Kingdom and Europe as a whole. It is especially vital that European industry should and will prove itself competitive in the emerging world markets for new technology if new jobs and wealth are to be created in Europe.
So far, European industry's performce in competing with the United States of America and Japan has been disappointing. In recent years, the Community's share of export markets for high technology has tended to decline while the penetration of imports into the Community in those sectors has increased. Yet this relative competitive weakness seems to be growing at a time when, according to the European Commission, the Community has been and is still spending a larger proportion than the United States of America or Japan on basic research. Unfortunately, Europe's strength in research is not matched by its performance in producing and selling products. We have a good record for winning Nobel prizes, but not for winning new markets. But there are positive signs of changing attitudes towards the better exploitation of research and development so as to sell products, processes and services not just in Europe but in world markets.
That new spirit is shown by the steps being taken to create a genuine common market in Europe, to match the large domestic markets enjoyed by United States and Japanese companies. The Community has had this objective for all of 30 years. But many non-tariff barriers, such as differing national standards, remain in place. The creation of standards which are applied throughout Europe is vital if real collaboration in high technology industries is to be fostered, as is the opening of public purchasing to create a more unified market.
In June last year, the Commission's White Paper "Completion of the Common Market" was welcomed by the European Council. This year, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, as the two countries holding the succeeding presidencies of the Community for the year, have identified more than 100 specific issues for decision. The process of opening the European markets is of central importance to the encouragement of co-operation by Europe's industry. Many of the individual measures taken to implement the White Paper will have a direct bearing on high technology Sectors such as information technology and telecommunications. In addition, the Eureka initiative—to which I will revert in detail later—will provide a clear link between the completion of the internal market and industrial collaboration by highlighting the measures which industry believes are essential to implement individual collaborative projects.
It is important also to recognise that the Community is playing a significant role in encouraging collaborative partnerships in high technology through aspects of its research and development programme. The most striking example is the Esprit programme, designed to strengthen Europe's capability in information technology by allowing

companies to share costs and spread risks through cooperation across frontiers. The United Kingdom strongly backed the Esprit programme from the outset as an exciting and novel initiative. This view has been proved right by the response from industry during the two years the programme has run to date. The United Kingdom information technology industry has responded positively to the opportunities which Esprit offers. About 50 United Kingdom firms and 35 academic institutions are taking part in about 210 projects, which together represent more than two thirds of the work being supported under the programme. The whole programme represents a remarkable demonstration of European collaboration in an important high technology sector.
In computers, the Esprit programme is the centrepiece of European collaboration, but it is backed by a growing number of bilateral links. For example, the British and French Governments are exploring the idea of setting up a forum to encourage cross-frontier links between their two national industries.
The Community is developing programmes for research and development in a number of other areas which are also encouraging co-operation between firms in advanced technologies. The Brite programme is one example, which is concentrating on the application of new technology in more traditional sectors of industry. Another is the Race programme, which is concerned with the development of advanced telecommunications. All these programmes will help to bring together European industry into a collaborative effort which can handle those large or particularly expensive research and development projects which can be more easily tackled at a European level than on a national basis.
A major development in the Community's research and development efforts will take place over the rest of this year with the discussion and agreement on a new framework programme for reseach and development between 1987 and 1991. The process of formulating and considering these new plans has only just begun, so I cannot discuss them in detail today. But the objective of the new programme must be quite clear: to address the research and development needs of European industry and to further the creation of a climate in which collaboration in high technology can lead on to real success in the market place.
Aerospace is another area where European collaboration has been an outstanding success. The current Airbus programme is the largest and most significant example of international collaboration in the field of civil aircraft. It has demonstrated that six European industrialists can combine their manufacturing resources to produce a highly competitive range of aircraft with a market appeal strong enough to challenge United States industry. The Airbus programme has also created the opportunity for numerous collaborative projects among European equipment manufacturers.
Both my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage and the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) referred to Government funding of the A330 and A340 projects. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House last week, the Department has yet to receive any application from British Aerospace for financial assistance in respect of these programmes. When that application is received it will be considered on its merits,


taking into account among other factors the prospects of the project achieving commercial viability and evidence that British Aerospace has tried to obtain private finance.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Will the Minister give me an assurance on a matter to which the Secretary of State refused to respond when Trade and Industry questions were last before the House? It is not a hypothetical question because it relates to what is taking place. If the entirety of the money cannot be found from the private sector and if the other criteria are satisfied, including the criterion of the return on capital that is invested in the project, will the Government then, in principle, not be opposed to supporting the project?

Mr. Howard: I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the position entirely clear in the House last week. I would not wish to add a word to the remarks which he made on that occasion.
I now turn to Eureka. Eureka is designed to stimulate a competitive European industrial capability in advanced technologies by providing an international framework for predominantly industry-based action to improve the exploitation of research and development through creation of collaborative, cross-frontier projects between two or more firms in the 18 member countries. The aim of these projects is to produce high technology goods, processes and services with a worldwide, not just European, sales potential.
So Eureka provides a framework for European business collaboration in advanced technology. I emphasise business collaboration, the essence of the whole concept is that collaboration should be market-led, initiated and carried through on a commercial basis by companies themselves. The Eureka machinery for co-operation between Governments is specifically designed to be flexible and responsive—the minimum necessary to discharge Eureka's two key tasks, which are to provide a network for the exchange of information on, and opportunities for, collaborative projects and a Europewide forum to identify market obstacles to the success of the projects, and to put new impetus behind action to tackle them. These are obstacles such as differing technical standards and protective public purchasing.
Eureka emphatically is not a new international bureaucracy. There have recently been some rather ill-informed suggestions to the contrary. One newspaper had evidently heard that the 18 member countries have agreed to establish a central secretariat. It jumped to the conclusion that this will be some vast unwieldy organisation charged with the task of "co-ordinating the projects themselves". Nothing could be further from the truth—as had been made crystal-clear in a press statement issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 11 March when he announced the date of the London ministerial conference on Eureka. The alleged vast new bureaucracy will consist of just half a dozen professional people with a similar number in support. And their job will essentialy be to set up a data-bank and circulate information about Eureka projects.
Some newspapers have contained all-too-familiar calls for public money, echoed by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West, who remains embedded in the old Labour party attitude of measuring each and every programme by the amount of money that can be thrown

at it. Without any real regard to the qualitative nature of the targeting of Government assistance to areas where it can achieve most good.
I shall make two points perfectly clear. The first is that Eureka is not, and will not become, a new international mechanism for funding collaborative ventures. All 18 member countries are firmly agreed on that. Anything of the kind would be costly, wasteful and wholly unnecessary.
Secondly, it is absolutely right that the market itself—private capital—should be the primary source of finance for market-led projects of the kind that Eureka is designed to stimulate. I am certainly not saying that we see no role for Government support for industrial research and development. We of course recognise that, while high technology projects with genuine commercial potential should eventually show a profit, they often involve real risk in the initial research stages. So it is at this point that support from public funds can be justified to help the creation of what will become successful products, processes and services that will benefit not just the firms concerned but in aggregate, the country as a whole.
This is where our support for innovation scheme comes into the Eureka picture. Collaboration between British and European firms is an increasingly important development if those firms are to capture a real share of world markets. The Government are determined to make full and effective use of the SFI scheme to encourage British industry to take part in Eureka. I can put it no better than my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Information Technology, who said:
Collaboration is essential if business in Britain and in Europe as a whole is to remain competitive in new technologies. We are determined to make full and effective use of the resources available under the Support for Innovation scheme to encourage British industrial participation in Eureka.
United Kingdom firms participating in Eureka projects are therefore eligible for support of up to 50 per cent. of their share of the applied research costs, and up to 25 per cent. of their share of development costs. Only one United Kingdom firm need be involved in a project to qualify for assistance at the higher level. In other respects, the terms of assistance in each case will be determined under the normal SFI criteria".
I should add that, following a recent exchange of views on the Eureka machinery on the support Governments are making available for Eureka projects, it is clear that these terms are very similar to those on which support is available in most other European countries.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: It does no good for the Minister to read out a press notice from the Department of Trade and Industry. Will the Minister categorically deny what the British Plastics Federation has circulated, which is to the effect that, as the support for the European collaborative ventures—in support of which all hon. Members stand—increases, the resources made available by the Department for the support for innovation scheme will decrease? Will the Minister please deny or confirm that?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman persists, as in other aspects of his approach, in inviting the House to regard the matter in black and white terms. He invites the House to adopt a simplistic approach. The House would not be inclined to regard such matters in such a misleading fashion.
There is no fixed approach to the funding of research and development. Of course, we have budgets for spending, but the exact balance between spending on


collaborative projects in Europe and purely national projects must depend, as any sensible person would expect it to, on the merits of the applications received.

Mr. Robinson: The French Government have a different approach. The Conservative Government also has a different approach to regional policy, which was to maximise our uptake of European funds. If we reduce our national funding we shall reduce the total funding available to British industry. The French Government ensure that for every franc or pound that they obtain from the various collaborative Europen ventures, one unit of Government funding is provided.
Will the Minister please say whether the Government's intention is to reduce the support available through the support for innovation scheme to national programmes, in favour of European programmes? I am sorry to put a direct question to the Minister but it is better for him to give me a direct reply.

Mr. Howard: I have made the Government's attitude clear and said that applications regarding both collaborative projects in Europe and purely national projects will be treated on their merits. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's perception of the French Government's attitude to the matter. It is probably wise to resist any temptation, although it is a considerable one, to follow him into the highways and byways of French politics. It will be interesting to see whether the new French Government's attitude to the large losses made by Renault is the same as that of their predecessors. I do not necessarily regard the decisions taken across the Channel as being the best touchstone to apply to decisions made by our Government. I am confident that the Government's attitude can stand analysis on its merits and has nothing to fear in comparisons with attitudes and decisions taken by our European Community partners.
The facts about Eureka are that there are already 26 Eureka projects actually going ahead; there are another 50

project proposals in the pipeline; and, in the specifically British context, United Kingdom firms are now involved in discussions on about half of these 50 new proposals. Eureka is still at a formative stage and it is certainly not perfect. But it is developing into a bandwagon on to which companies—British and European—increasingly want to climb. We, as the United Kingdom chairman, are doing our best to ensure that a reality is made of the concept.
It is clear from all the developments I have mentioned that co-operation in the high technology industries is a matter which is taken very seriously in Europe today. There are already many examples, within the Eureka framework and outside, of exciting new joint ventures in high technology involving European companies. I can assure my hon. friend and the House that the Government are playing their full part in encouraging these developments. At the end of the day it will be the degree of flair, innovation and marketing skills shown by our industries themselves which will decide whether Europe can improve its track record in competing for world markets. But the Government are determined to create the right conditions for European collaboration in the advanced technologies, and are working hard with other European countries, both inside and outside the Community, to achieve that objective.

Mr. Wood: I wish to thank my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) for their speeches. I commend the motion on the Order Paper to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House strongly supports the policies pursued by Her Majesty's Government in European collaboration in research and development in high technology industries, including through Esprit and Eureka; and in addition wishes to see these industries further develop joint manufacturing and marketing projects.

Sport for the Disabled

Mr. John Watts (Slough): I beg to move,
That this House recognises the important role which sport can play in improving the quality of life for disabled people; notes with concern that the extent of the Sports Council's support for sport for the disabled was only £100,000 from a total budget of £30 million in 1985–86; and calls upon the Sports Council to make a reality of its slogan 'Sport for All' by giving proper financial support to disabled sportsmen.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to draw attention to the provision of sports facilities for the disabled. My motion first recognises the important role which sports can play in improving the quality of life for disabled people. In support of that argument, perhaps I may refer to a letter from a constituent who is a member of an organisation known as SADSAD—the Slough and District Sports Association for the Disabled. She asks herself:
What do I benefit as a member of SADSAD? I gain better confidence in myself as a person, a unique individual and take a much more positive and social attitude to the others.
Sports associations give the disabled the opportunity to achieve and excell in another sphere of activity, and to gain confidence and, above all, self-respect through competitive activity and participation in sports.
For disabled sportsmen, competition is on two levels. Naturally, they compete against each other, as all sportsmen do. However, there is also the important element of competition against the individual disability. Beating the disability is the aim of many of these people—to live life to the full and to overcome the difficulties that they have found in their way.
However, without the provision of specialist facilities, or at the very least careful design of sporting facilities intended for general use to ensure that access for the physically disabled is relatively easy, there can be many obstacles to be overcome before the intending sportsman of sportswoman reaches first base—participating in a chosen sport. While facilities designed to be suitable and accessible for disabled people are equally accessible and suitable for use of the able bodied, the reverse, sadly, is not the case.
It has to be recognised that disabled people in our community form a minority, but it is a pretty sizeable one. It is estimated that about 8 per cent. of our total population suffers from disability in one form or another—more than 4 million people, and some estimates suggest that the figure is higher. It is important for those of us who enjoy the good fortune of being able bodied not be negligent of the needs of the disabled or to be complacent about our own good fortune and good health. Some people are born with disabilities, but many more acquire disability through accident or illness.
In my local sports association for the disabled, only one in 10 of its disabled members were born disabled, and the other 90 per cent. have suffered from disabling accidents or illnesses at a later stage in their lives. For those who in their able bodied life have been keen sportsmen the realisation that disablement does not have to mean the end of their active participation in sport can provide a very important psychological prop during that difficult and agonising period of adjusting to a different style of life.
Sport can bring benefits to all, and it should be available to all. As I understand it, this is the proud boast of the Sports Council slogan, "Sport for all". Sadly, this proud boast is found to be lacking in substance when one

examines the support that the Sports Council gives to disabled sportsmen and sportswomen. I was shocked to learn from a written answer on 28 January this year from my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport that the Sports Council's grant aid to organisations directly concerned with sport for disabled people was approximately £100,000 in each of the past three years. That is only 0·3 per cent. of its budget, which in the current year is £32·9 million, which grows to about £40 million in the next financial year.
To place that minimal expenditure of £100,000 in context, I note from the public expenditure White Paper section on the Sports Council that it has spent 11 times as much as that on public affairs to promote the council's aims and policies, including, presumably, its slogan "Sport for all".
It spends 15 times as much on what is described as management, which I assume to be a euphemism for administration. If the provision for disabled sportsmen did no more than reflect the 8 per cent. of our population who suffer from a disability, the Sports Council's expenditure in support of sport for the disabled would be more than £2·5 million a year against its actual spend of only £100,000.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Richard Tracey): I shall deal with some of the points that my hon. Friend is making when I reply to the debate, but he says that the money to which he referred represents direct grants to specific organisations for the disabled. Will he bear in mind that the whole of the Sports Council's grant is aimed at all people? Is he able to say a few words about the integration of the disabled into the community? I should be interested in his comments about that aspect before I reply to his motion.

Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend has made a good point. I am not setting out to achieve some kind of sports apartheid in which the disabled have their section and the able-bodied have theirs. I said earlier that to the fullest possible extent sports facilities which are designed for general use should also cater for the needs of the disabled and bear in mind difficulty of access for the disabled so that there is the widest possible access for all. I acknowledge that some of the Sports Council's expenditure under other headings will indirectly be of benefit to the disabled, just as it benefits the whole of the community. None the less, if the Sports Council had been able to present its performance in meeting the needs of disabled people in a somewhat better light than that disturbingly low figure of £100,000 reveals, I believe that it would have taken that opportunity. I have seen no sign of that.
I acknowledge that the Sports Council has a wide responsibility, that one of its responsibilities is to promote centres of excellence, and that this has an inevitable effect upon the way in which it allocates its resources. However, it is important to recognise that it is not only the able bodied who can excel in sport. To my mind, the thalidomide victim who swims competitively, propelled only by stumps where arms and legs should be, also has a desire to excel and strives to excel and to achieve. That excellence and that achievement should also be recognised. Therefore, the Sports Council should accept the responsibility also to support centres of excellence for disabled sportsmen.
I am neither disabled nor, as my somewhat over-ample frame probably indicates, an active participant in sport or, indeed, a spectator. But that does not prevent me from understanding the immense pleasure which participation in sport brings to so many people, both the able bodied and the disabled. But my particular interest in sport for the disabled stems from my involvement with SADSAD, the organisation in my constituency, and my role as a patron of its Everest building appeal.
That appeal is so named because its organisers have set themselves what they see as the mountainous task of raising £300,000 to fund the building of a purpose-built sports centre for the disabled at Stoke park in Slough. The plans for this centre include, obviously, a level single-storey building so that there is easy access throughout, with a major sports hall marked out for a wide variety of sports, including badminton, basketball, handball and volleyball. Other activities which are planned include archery, athletics, bowls, darts, judo, movement, dance and table tennis.
That part of the project represents only the foothills. There are further plans for phases 2, 3 and onwards which would provide facilities for track events, swimming and bowling. It is no exaggeration to liken the task SADSAD has set itself to the scaling of Everest.
I am not one of those who argue that voluntary organisations should look primarily to the public purse for all their funding. Since the appeal was launched in 1983, voluntary funding of £27,000 has been raised. That has been sufficient to pay the professional fees charged to complete all the design work and to obtain planning permission so that construction can begin as soon as the balance of the funds becomes available.
Berkshire county council has given the site for the sports centre at a peppercorn rent of £10 a year. Discussions are taking place with Slough borough council and the South Buckinghamshire district council about financial contributions from those authorities. Voluntary fund raising continues relentlessly. The mayor of Slough has approached the European Commission through the good offices of Baroness Elles, who is our MEP, but an application for support to the Sports Council has been deferred until the end of this year. That is disappointing. I hope that the Sports Council's consideration will be favourable and that it will recognise that the facility not only will serve the people of Slough but will have the potential to form a regional centre of excellence for sports for the disabled—a facility of "wider than local significance", as the public expenditure White Paper stated.
Each year, SADSAD hosts a weekend of sporting activities to which disabled sportsment from all over the country come. The programme of events at last September's meeting shows a wide range of activities, starting at 9 am on Saturday and continuing until 8 pm on Sunday, encompassing all sorts of field events and going down to draughts and dominoes. Most of them are active participatory sports. I have had the pleasure of attending those sporting events and seeing the pleasure felt by the sportsmen in their ability to participate and seeing their great courage, bravery and determination to overcome their disabilities so that they can achieve in sport.
What more could be done if only this purpose-built centre were available to the disabled people of my constituency, the surrounding areas and the rest of the southern region? I hope that some of the Budget proposals,

including those that extend tax relief to charitable donations, will provide a further welcome boost to our voluntary fund raising efforts. I hope that local companies will seize the opportunity to put some of the profits they have earned in the community back in the community for the benefit of disabled people, most of whom are their employees. I hope that employees of local companies will take the opportunity to contribute to this project through the payroll deduction scheme with the benefit of tax relief.
We shall exploit all the oportunities to the hilt, but there is still room for an element of public funding. Each year millions of pounds are spent on the provision of sports facilities at public expense through the Sports Council and local authorities. In the past 10 years, the Slough corporation has spent £15 million on the provison of sports facilities locally—facilities, it must be said, which are used predominantly by the able bodied.
No one asks able bodied sportsmen to raise cash before any of the facilities are provided and before the local authority makes a contribution. No one asks able bodied sportsmen to carry on fund raising after the facility has been provided in order to defray the running cost. Why is it that such a demand should be made, almost uniquely on disabled sportsmen, who have extra disabilities and obstacles to overcome before they even reach the starting point of participating in sport? Why should they be required to meet such stringent requirements before the public purse strings can be loosened just a little?
I am in favour of voluntary effort, and I intend no pun when I say that people should stand on their own feet, because that is precisely what the members of SADSAD and other disabled sports associations do to the best of their physical ability. However, they need some support, the support that is readily available to the able bodied. The Sports Council has a responsibility to take a lead, and I call upon it to face its responsibilities for disabled sportsmen and to make a reality of what is at present no more than an empty slogan, "Sport for all".

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Richard Tracey): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) for raising this matter. I attach considerable importance to this subject, and so do my colleagues in Government. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree on the importance of consideration for the disabled. If my hon. Friend's motion had been the first and not the third one on the Order Paper, we would have had a sizeable attendance, because he and I remember that for Friday debates about the disabled in the past there was always a queue of hon. Members outside the door, waiting to get in to talk about the subject. It is a matter that touches deeply our lives and the lives of a number of our constituents.
My contact with the disabled over the years has been fairly considerable. They desperately wish to be integrated in the community and not to have too much attention focused upon them. They do not want a spotlight placed upon them or for there to be too much probing discussion. I should like to develop that point in my remarks about the integration of disabled people into sport, a subject I mentioned to my hon. Friend in my intervention The Sports Council's policy is enthusiastic on this point.
We fully recognise the value to disabled people of all ages of participation in sport and recreational activities. That is not only because of the important health benefits


which are also enjoyed by the able-bodied, but because of the sheer enjoyment and the contact that they enjoy with their fellows. In my responsibility for sport and recreation I am keen to promote community participation in all sports at grass roots level. I have talked about that many times both in the House and outside, and I view as a priority that we should have full-scale community participation in sport for all our people. Disabled people should have the same opportunity as able-bodied people to participate in sport.
My hon. Friend has mentioned his experiences in his constituency, and they are obviously good ones. We have all had such experiences. My constituency is fortunate to have the Kingston Association for the Disabled and SADSAD sounds similar. The Kingston association has a lively and active secretary and a full programme of events. Indeed, in Surrey, around my constituency, the disabled have a considerable involvement in sport. It shows how well-organised things are because I have already been asked to a special football tournament for the disabled in Surrey in May 1987. No doubt that will be an excellent day and, as with other sporting contests, it will be followed in the evening by, I am told, a good dinner at which I am asked to speak. That is the sort of enthusiasm that I find.
I have had contact with sports for the disabled for a number of years. When I was at school one of the best days in our rowing calendar was rowing against the Worcester college for the blind on the River Avon and the River Severn. We had some real needle matches. Latterly, I have been involved in the triathlon competition at the royal showground at Stoneleigh where co-ordinated teams of the able-bodied and disabled join in shooting and fishing. The able-bodied ride horses and the disabled compete in a slalom event. That is the sort of thing that leads me to believe that provision is being made, some of it voluntary, some of it provided from public funds. The provision is there and the keenness is there.
My hon. Friend has drawn attention in his motion to the Sports Council's policies towards, and funding of, sports for the disabled. He will no doubt be aware that all Government money specifically allocated for the development of sport, particularly the unique services, is channelled through the Sports Council. It is for the council to decide how much of its funds are specifically allocated to various sports or to a specific area such as sport for the disabled. Mr. Ken Roberts is an active member of the Sports Council. He is disabled and he specifically represents the views of the disabled and takes part in the general discussions of the council. The council distributes its funds in the light of its policies and priorities with fair consideration of all those matters.
Apart from the Sports Council, I am glad that my hon. Friend has not forgotten, that the major contribution to sport from public funds in Britain is the £700 million going through the local authorities, of which a large part is from the rate support grant.
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to matters of planning and design of sports facilities. I am glad to say that the Sports Council takes a great interest in those premises that are particularly within its direct responsibility—the national centres. In the annual report for the last year, mention is made of Worcester college for the blind participating in mountaineering and rock-climbing exercises at the Plas-y-Brenin national centre in Wales and also the special courses for deaf squash players at the Bisham abbey premises near Marlow, close to my hon. Friend's constituency.
I can assure my hon. Friend that disabled people have certainly not been forgotten by the Sports Council in the exercise of the "Sport for all" ideal. The European "Sport for all" charter was, of course, aimed at all sectors of the community and the council is concerned to encourage disabled sportsmen and women to integrate—that is an important word—with the more able-bodied, wherever appropriate.
The principle of integration with the able-bodied is an important one to grasp in understanding the Sports Council's funding of the facilities for the disabled. There is no direct reference to it in my hon. Friend's motion. Nor should we overlook the fact that there are a number of sports in which the disabled compete on equal terms with the able-bodied. I have spoken already of rowing and canoeing, and I can also mention archery, shooting, bowls, and sailing.
I should give more details of the Council's grant-aid policy. The motion refers to sports Council support of £100,000 for sport for the desabled, and while that figure is correct, it represents only the value of direct grant aid to specific disabled sport organisations such as the British sports association for the disabled—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES (PROMOTION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object

Second Reading deferred till Friday 11 April.

MEDICAL ACT 1983 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object

Second Reading deferred till Friday 2 May.

CHESTERFIELD BOROUGH COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The Bill of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was referred to the Examiners on 19 March and their report has not yet been received. The Second Reading cannot be moved until that occurs.

Michael Martin (Report)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I thank the House for the opportunity to raise once again the case of Michael Martin by way of an Adjournment debate. As the House is probably aware, and as the Minister is certainly aware, the death of Michael Martin in Broadmoor some 18 months ago really lit a touch paper to a torch which began to illuminate a number of matters.
The matter moved forward from there by the appointment of an inquiry under Miss Shirley Ritchie, QC, which reported in the summer of last year. Many of us who have an interest in this area and in mental health generally waited with some interest to see to what extent the Ritchie report would be received by the Government. The initial reaction is that they accepted all the recommendations, as I understand it, except one. The Mental Health Act Commission, in a release dated the same day—30 August—urged the Government to change their mind on that recommendation. I hope that this afternoon, I can deal with that recommendation and then widen the issue into general matters which appertain to people who are detained in places such as Broadmoor.
That recommendation was one which, on the face of it, seems to any sensible man or woman to be perfectly reasonable. It recommends that people should not be administered sedative drugs, particularly heavy sedative drugs, unless it be done under the authority of and by a medical practitioner. There are few people in this land who would feel happy if they knew that the decision as to dosage for particular sedatives did not lie in the hands of a medical practitioner.
Michael Martin was detained in Broadmoor. There had been an incident, the facts of which are not pertinent now. After the incident Michael Martin was physically restrained, stripped of his clothes and injected. The injection was made by a nurse. The injection he was given was heavy—500 ml of one sedative and 200 ml of another. The tragedy was that he had already received, if my memory serves me correctly, some 400 ml of a further sedative earlier that day. He had eaten and they put him in a side room. He choked to death on his own vomit. Of course, certain physical injuries had been sustained when he was restrained, but that issue need not concern us this afternoon.
Any of us who considers those matters with any care appreciates that in mental hospitals there are occasions when people should be, need to be and have to be restrained for their own safety. How they are restrained should be the subject of careful training. How they should be dealt with medically must, of necessity, mean very careful medical training.
When one puts a drug into a human being, sometimes against his will, one cannot predict with complete certainty what will happen. The tragedy in Michael's case was that the mixture or the cocktail—call it what one will—of drugs undoubtedly led to vomiting, as the report shows, and to his death. I do not blame the staff of Broadmoor in any way. I do not seek in this Adjournment debate to cast any aspersions on them. I hope that we can learn some lessons from that tragedy, and ensure that it never occurs

again and that the standards in the secure mental hospitals of Broadmoor, Rampton, Moss Side and Park Lane are raised.
The people who serve in those institutions take on an onerous task. Unless, as a society, we give them the assistance that they need, we are not fair to them nor to the patients in those hospitals. If it means—it must mean this—that we have to increase the staffing levels in those four institutions, so be it, because a society that is not prepared to help the weakest in its midst, and those in greatest need, is a pretty poor society. People find themselves in secure units because they are said to have committed a criminal offence—one accepts that the majority have, but sometimes they have not. They are, through no fault of their own, deemed to be extremely ill. Mental illness is not a glamorous subject. It does not excite great headlines. Few people are prepared to fight the corner for it, but I assure the Minister that those who are prepared to do so will continue to press and press on those matters.
The more I read of the Ritchie report, and the more carefully I consider how the terms of reference were interpreted, the more I believe that only one narrow aspect of the matter has as yet been explored. The exploration that one seeks is in no way an attempt to criticise what has happened. We hope that the exploration is in the spirit of seeking ways to prevent tragedies in the future and to improve and enhance the standard of care in hospitals.
The one recommendation that the Government could not accept states:
The decision to administer heavy sedatives should he made by a doctor and not by nursing staff. The decision should he made at the time of the incident by a doctor in attendance on the ward. He should be made fully aware of the extent of the violence immediately preceding his attendance and the quality and quantity of food recently consumed by the patient.
My next remark is in no way critical of the nursing profession. Is it right to put upon the nurses at Broadmoor the onerous decision of making decisions about the injection of heavy sedatives? The Mental Health Act Commission says no, and most of the members of the medical profession to whom I have spoken say no. Everybody says no, but the Government say yes. I accept that it will mean that doctors will have to be in attendance on the wards at Broadmoor, perhaps around the clock. I accept that it will mean more doctors. But is that not a small, and, indeed, the right price to pay? Such important decisions could then be taken by those trained to take them. The staff at Broadmoor would be the first to say that their training should be longer and more intensive. It is not adequate for the decisions that have to be taken. The same applies to Rampton, Park Lane, and Moss Side, and the other secure hospitals. Some mental hospitals, including Rainhill in my constituency, have secure units attached to them. The same principle must apply. If we are to learn any lesson from Michael's death, let it be that expertise must be brought to bear when administering heavy sedatives.
I referred earlier to the danger of the drug cocktail. A person needs to be a specialist to understand such things, and needs to be trained for years before being able to take the right decisions. The doctors in attendance at Broadmoor have specialised, and have not come straight from college. They are very experienced men. Is it too much to ask, then, that a doctor should be there to make the decision when a patient needs heavy sedation? He


would have to consider what food the patient had eaten, because of the risk of choking to death on vomit when sedated.
In the case of Michael Martin, a doctor was not in attendance, there was a death, and there are lessons to be learnt. The report shows that the wing where Michael was located lacked facilities. I do not blame the staff, who have to cope with horrendous problems. However, the fact that a person is mentally ill does not mean that he needs to be sitting in a chair in a group of 12 for endless hours day after day. That is not the way to help. Outdoor facilities should be available. I appreciate that that would cost money, and that it would mean more staff and greater investment. But, our society can afford that.
Let it never be said that the sick are too heavy a cost for society to bear. After all, a person goes to Broadmoor because he is ill. It may well be that he has committed an offence, but that offence may have been committed before he was ill. Of course, some patients have committed no offence, and are just ill.
Money lies at the root of our problems. The facilities are inadequate, as are staffing numbers. Even the buildings are inadequate. I have raised this subject in the hope that a life lost in tragic circumstances will not have been lost in vain. If all five of the report's recommendations can be implemented, and if the Minister gives an undertaking that he will consider some of the matters I have raised about facilities, staffing and the general conditions within secure units, that tragedy may well turn out to be one step along the road to better conditions for many.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): I am grateful to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) for raising this important matter. He touched on the tragic death of Mr. Michael Martin and covered broader issues, and I shall try to respond as well as I can to all his points. If I have not covered some of them, I or my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State will write to the hon. Gentleman. I accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we must learn from such tragedies, and that we must constantly strive to enhance the standards of care in such difficult cases. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's consistent interest in the complex and important area of mental health and his activities with the organisation MIND.
Given the tragic case of Mr. Martin, the reaction that it caused and the inquest's finding of
accidental death aggravated by lack of care,
this was clearly a matter of such public concern that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the former Minister for Health, decided to establish an inquiry. It was also an opportunity for the staff at Broadmoor to put their side of the story relating to the events of that day and other events. My right hon. and learned Friend invited Miss Shirley Ritchie, QC to undertake the inquiry. She sought advice on clinical matters from two highly respected clinicians—Dr. Higgins, a consultant psychiatrist, and Miss McCloughlin, a district nursing officer.
Before I talk about some aspects of the report and what has been done to improve procedures at Broadmoor

hospital in the light of Miss Ritchie's recommendations, and in the light of decisions taken separately, in some instances before her recommendations appeared, it is important to emphasise the context in which patients such as Mr. Martin are cared for in special hospitals. As the hon. Gentleman understands, it is a difficult job, and he paid tribute to the staff. We recognise that the physical environment is far from ideal. Broadmoor hospital is well over 100 years old, and despite the best efforts of all to improve the fabric of the building, to reduce patient numbers significantly during the past 10 years, and to advance therapeutic and rehabilitation regimes, it remains a difficult place in which to work.
Problems are exacerbated by the fact that staff are dealing with mentally disordered patients who, because they are either so difficult to manage or so prone to extreme dangerousness, cannot be satisfactorily cared for anywhere except in conditions of special security. The House will agree that we owe it to the staff to recognise that those problems exist, and that was certainly the case with Mr. Martin.
I do not wish to give details about patients, but it is clear that Mr. Martin was a young man who fluctuated sharply between moods of cheerfulness and considerable violence. During his time in Broadmoor, he made more than 20 unprovoked attacks on staff and other patients. Yet, between those bouts, he displayed a happy and lively personality. The nursing staff were fond of Mr. Martin, who was one of their younger patients, and as Miss Ritchie said in her report, he became something of a pet on the ward. However, there is no doubt that he could be a difficult patient to handle. It is to the credit of those looking after him that, while in Norfolk house, he showed some overall improvement, to the extent that consideration had been given to the possibility of a planned transfer of him back to Bexley hospital.
Miss Ritchie's report appeared in August 1985 and Ministers welcomed the care and sympathy with which the task was carried out and the skill with which she identified the problems and shortcomings that had occurred. Miss Ritchie made five recommendations, all of which were accepted except that which related to the practice of administering heavy sedatives, to which the hon. Member for St. Helen's South referred with some emphasis.
There is no doubt that the administering of sedatives is a difficult issue in all hospitals, and especially so in hospitals such as Broadmoor in the circumstances which I have described. Section I of Miss Ritchie's report discusses this issue in detail and the responsibilities that attach to it. It quotes in full the notice issued on 8 October 1984 by the medical director to all nursing staff and doctors in Broadmoor. The effect of the notice was to forbid the administration of any medication unless it had previously been prescribed in writing by a doctor. The issue of a prescription in writing is known as the PRN basis, and it specifies in advance the circumstances in which particular forms of medication may be administered to a named patient. The effect of insisting that a decision to administer heavy sedatives should be made by a doctor and not by nursing staff and of specifying that the decision
should be made at the time of the incident by a doctor in attendance on the ward
would be to prevent medical and nursing staff at the hospital from using the PRN practice, to which I have referred, which is generally accepted as being available for use by medical and nursing staff in hospitals. As I have


said, this was the only one of Miss Ritchie's recommendations that was not accepted by the Department.
The effect of the recommendation would have been to remove from the nursing staff at Broadmoor hospital, and Broadmoor hospital alone, the professional responsibility of a qualified nurse to exercise judgment in the administration of properly prescribed medicines.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, South has suggested that everyone agrees with Miss Ritchie and that no one agrees with the Department's view. That is not so. Among others, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery, and Health Visiting and the Royal College of Nursing have all confirmed that they agree with decision not to accept this one recommendation of the Ritchie report.
There is no doubt that when the tragic incident involving Michael Martin occurred there was a degree of confusion and lack of precision. I think that it is clear that the effect of the two notices that have since been issued by the medical director is to remove all uncertainty and ambiguity and to ensure that the practice at Broadmoor hospital will conform with the most demanding standards that might be applied in any other hospital. The responsible medical officer is involved in evey decision to employ advance prescribing. He specifies the dosage of a particular drug to be administered in defined circumstances to a particular patient. For example, in the case of a patient who is thought likely to have a disturbed episode, it might be decided that it would be in the patient's own interests if drug treatment were given immediately. If at the same time there are contra-indications, senior nurses will seek medical guidance and will not administer the drug automatically.
Multidisciplinary working, underpinned by clinical teams concerned with the overall care of the patient, is practised in Broadmoor as in other psychiatric hospitals. Decisions on medication are taken in that context. There may be occasions when it is essential that a patient is given medication without delay. Advance prescription is decided in the light of discussions between the members of the clinical team. Following the administration of such a prescription there would be a full review by the clinical team. That is in step with current thinking on crisis intervention throughout the National Health Service.
The hon. Gentleman said that some members of the Mental Health Act Commission are not disposed to accept the Department's view. Baroness Trumpington has had discussions with the chairman of the commission and we are continuing to investigate the issue through a working

party. I emphasise that this situation obtains throughout the Health Service and has been extremely carefully considered. We shall have to move carefully before we go in the direction urged by the hon. Gentleman.
All the other recommendations in the report by Miss Ritchie have been adopted. That is a demonstration of our commitment to continue improving as best we can our care and treatment of such patients, given the inherrently difficult problems.
Prior to that inquiry, a number of matters were already under consideration or had been acted upon by the hospital. For example, there was training in restraint for staff. Just before Mr. Martin's death the hospital management team decided that Broadmoor hospital staff should undertake such courses and begin training before the end of 1984.
During 1984, the Department had in progress a comprehensive review of seclusion policy and procedures in the special hospital service. In April 1985 a report constituting policy for local application was sent to each hospital. That is another concern emphasised by Miss Ritchie's report.
On 15 October 1984, the hospital provided nursing staff with written guidance about the internal movement of patients in Norfolk house. The number of beds has been reduced in Norfolk house, where Mr. Martin was established, from 39 to 36, and the staff has been increased by one. The hospital management team has plans to reduce from three to two the wards in Norfolk house. A key element is the provision of a re-socialisation unit on the top floor. The scope for occupational therapy has been considered carefully by the hospital management team. It is seeking improvements.
We have been talking about an extremely difficult and emotive case. Everyone concerned was deeply disturbed by it. When tragedies such as this occur it is essential to learn from them. Whether or not mistakes are made, we can always learn. That was the objective in conducting the report. I am confident that we and the hospital authorities generally have learnt from the Ritchie report. We can take some comfort from that. We must always keep on trying, but we shall never reach perfection in such a difficult area.
We shall keep the administration of sedatives under review. The circumstances in which sedatives may be prescribed have been carefully examined. We are talking about a longstanding practice which has been found to be adequate and, indeed, necessary, given the type of emergencies that inevitably arise from time to time.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.